HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/7/2023 Item 7a, Horn - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: November 7, 2023
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 7A – STUDY SESSION: TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY REVIEW
City Council received additional funding considerations via public comment for specific
recommendations listed in the final draft of the Transit Innovation Study report. The
considerations are below with staff’s response shown in italics. Staff was also made
aware of formatting errors within the final draft report which were addressed in the
corrected draft report attached to this memo.
1) Target selling more passes because, for every $40 monthly pass sold, the
City is eligible to receive an additional $160 from state/federal funds. In other
words, for every monthly pass sold, SLO transit has an additional $200.
Equally important, if people have a monthly pass, they are more likely to ride
the bus.
Response: The City receives federal and state funding to offset the difference
between bus fares and operational costs. Increased sales of all pass types
including monthly passes contribute to coverage of operational costs. Section 5 of
the Transit Innovation Study draft report (packet pages 223 to 228) discusses
recommendations for fare program updates. Implementation of fare changes for
students, seniors, and low-income riders is one of the recommendations and is
listed as a High Priority item. Expanding the types of passes and rate discounts
available could increase transit ridership and, as a result, increase base fare
revenue to cover more operational costs. Staff is supportive of expanding fare
options to attract new riders and looks forward to receiving Council’s input.
2) The City should not subsidize large employers, such as the County, for this
program (Downtown Access Pass). Large employers are required by SLO
City Municipal Code (11.04.010: Rule 901 – Commute Alternative Rule) to
meet average vehicle ridership (AVR) requirements. Large employers should
fund (and promote) participation by their employees, just like Cal Poly does
for faculty/staff.
Response: The City’s Parking Enterprise Fund subsidizes the Downtown Access
Pass program up to $20,000 annually. The program has not been well-adopted by
participants as currently administered. The Transit Innovation Study draft report
recommends geographic expansion, as well as policy, changes to increase
program participation. Council can direct staff to restrict program participation to
Item 7a – Transit Innovation Study Review Page 2
employers with fewer than 100 employees and, instead, direct staff to work
separately with large employers to promote transit programs for their employees.
However, doing so may affect program adoption and hinder transit ridership
restoration.
3) Institutional Pass Program – Students at Laguna Middle School and SLO
High School should ride City buses instead of school district buses. With the
money saved, the school district could pay for free monthly passes for
students from low-income families and possibly subsidize monthly passes
for other students.
Response: Council and staff have received requests from parents of Laguna
Middle School students requesting the expansion of discounted student fare
options. Staff has contacted the school’s administration with the intent to discuss
expansion of and funding scenarios for expansion of discounted student fare
options. Any proposed fare options developed will be brought before Council for
their consideration. Any proposed fare and route changes must comply with the
Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR part 605, Subpart B: School Bus
Operations) which stipulates that no Federal financial assistance may be used to
provide operations exclusively for transportation of students or school personnel.
4) One of the top recommendations is to enhance fixed route service. I strongly
advocate for providing more frequent service to SLO airport. Route 1, the
only service to the airport as well as to the newly added housing along the
Broad St corridor, only runs once/hour, while other parts of the city are
serviced by routes running more often.
Response: Enhancing SLO Transit’s fixed-route services is the highest priority
recommendation listed in the report. Increasing service frequency across all fixed
routes will be analyzed as part of the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) update
which is currently underway. The SRTP will analyze potential ridership as well as
capital and ongoing costs needed to implement such service enhancements. Draft
recommendations are anticipated to be ready by June 2024 for review and
comment by the public and by Council.
5) There are document reference errors shown in the final draft of the Transit
Innovation study report.
Response: Staff has corrected the reference errors and has included an updated
Transit Innovation Study final draft as Attachment A to this correspondence. These
referential errors have been corrected and not other changes have been made to
the draft.
ATTACHMENT
A – Transit Innovation Study Draft Report (corrected)
Final Report
SLO Transit Innovations Study
Prepared for SLO Transit
by Arcadis IBI Group
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY SLO TRANSIT INNOVATIONS STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
Document Control Page
CLIENT: SLO Transit
PROJECT NAME:
REPORT TITLE: SLO Transit Innovations Study
IBI REFERENCE:
VERSION:
DIGITAL MASTER:
ORIGINATOR: Josh Albertson, Brady Vanlo, Steve Wilks , Debjit Banerjee
REVIEWER: Nihit Jain
AUTHORIZATION: Santosh Mishra
CIRCULATION LIST:
HISTORY: V3.0 October 30, 2023
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATIONS STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
Table of Contents
i
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 6
1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 7
2 Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment .................................................................. 9
2.1 Stakeholders ............................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Existing Systems ...................................................................................................... 9
3 On-Board Technology Upgrades for Ongoing Operations .......................................... 12
3.1 CAD/AVL System Replacement ............................................................................ 12
3.2 APC Replacement ................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Improved Camera Systems ................................................................................... 14
4 Technologies that Improve Riders’ User Experience ................................................... 16
4.1 Enhanced Real-Time Passenger Information Systems ......................................... 16
4.2 Open Loop Payments ............................................................................................ 18
4.3 MaaS Platform ....................................................................................................... 18
5 Fare Program Updates to Increase Transit Accessibility ............................................. 20
5.1 Fare Changes for Student, Senior, and Low-Income Riders ................................. 21
5.2 Institutional Program Recommendations ............................................................... 22
5.3 Downtown Access Passes ..................................................................................... 23
6 Bus Shelter and Street Improvements for Rider Safety and Comfort ......................... 26
6.1 Update Bus Stop Amenity Inventory ...................................................................... 26
6.2 Lighting Improvements ........................................................................................... 28
6.3 Shelter Improvements ............................................................................................ 28
6.4 Bike Parking ........................................................................................................... 29
6.5 Mobility Hubs ......................................................................................................... 32
6.6 Bus Bulb Outs ........................................................................................................ 33
7 Service Enhancements .................................................................................................... 35
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATIONS STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
Table of Contents (continued)
ii
7.1 Enhanced Service on Fixed Routes ...................................................................... 35
7.2 Pursue Microtransit Mobility Services .................................................................... 38
7.3 Implement Bikeshare Program .............................................................................. 38
7.4 Implement Carshare Program ............................................................................... 39
7.5 Implement a Transit Signal Priority Strategy ......................................................... 40
8 Summary............................................................................................................................ 43
8.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 43
8.2 Funding Sources .................................................................................................... 45
Appendix A – Existing Systems ................................................................................................ 48
Appendix B – Needs Assessment ............................................................................................. 52
TABLES
Table 1: SLO Transit Innovations Study Recommendations ............................................... 5
Table 2: Recommendations related to Improvements to On -Board Technology .............. 12
Table 3: Recommendations Related to Innovative Mobility Concepts .............................. 16
Table 4: Recommendations Related to Fare Policies and Programs ................................ 20
Table 5: SLO Transit Fare Programs ................................................................................. 20
Table 6: SLO Transit Fare Categories ............................................................................... 21
Table 7: Recommendations Related to Bus Stop Enhancements ..................................... 26
Table 8: Recommendations Related to Service Enhancements ....................................... 35
Table 9: Recommendations for SLO Transit ..................................................................... 44
Table 10: FTA Grant Opportunities .................................................................................... 47
Table 11: Systems Inventory ............................................................................................. 49
Table 12: SLO Transit Needs ............................................................................................ 53
FIGURES
Figure 1. SLO Transit Service Map ...................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: SLO Transit Existing Systems ............................................................................ 11
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATIONS STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
Table of Contents (continued)
iii
Figure 3. An example of an RTPI sign at a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA) Implementation Bus Stop ................................................................... 17
Figure 4: Levels of MaaS ................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5: Downtown Access Pass Program Boundaries .................................................. 24
Figure 6: Downtown SLO Transit Center ........................................................................... 27
Figure 7: Orcutt at Laurel Bus Stop ................................................................................... 27
Figure 8: South at Parker (E) Bus Stop ............................................................................. 29
Figure 9: Bike racks at Chorro and Monterey St ................................................................ 30
Figure 10: CalPoly Bike Lockers Located on Village Dr. ................................................... 31
Figure 11: Mobility Hub Example (Source: SANDAG) ....................................................... 33
Figure 12: Bus Bulb Outs (Source: NACTO) ..................................................................... 34
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
1
Executive Summary
The Transit Innovations Study presents the City of San Luis Obispo with a unique opportunity
to reimagine SLO Transit. In 2020, the City set an ambitious mode-split objective target for
12% of trips to occur on transit by 2035, while it simultaneously experienced a dramatic decline
in transit ridership due to the COVID-19 pandemic. SLO Transit needs to provide the
community with approximately 500,000 additional trips every year to return to pre-pandemic
levels when the mode split objective was established. This bold and ambitious commitment to
increasing transit ridership necessitates moving beyond incremental change and investing in
transformative solutions.
Transportation is the largest source of the City’s climate emissions, and transit is a key lever
to reduce emissions. The City also recognizes that public transit is more than a climate solution
– it is equally a housing, parking, equity, and inclusivity solution. As the construction of new
subdivisions comes to a close, the City will increasingly rely on infill development to keep pace
with housing demand. As new housing increases the density of existing neighborhoods, SLO
Transit can alleviate parking concerns while providing an affordable mobility option for a
growing community of people that work, live, and play in San Luis Obispo.
This opportunity to bolster and improve SLO Transit is strengthened by the City’s recent
staffing and organizational changes. San Luis Obispo’s new Mobility Services Division brings
together Transit, Active Transportation, and Parking Services to allow greater coordination
between all forms of mobility the City oversees including pedestrian, bike, car, and transit. This
staffing change reflects the fact that transit can’t succeed by itself. SLO Transit’s future
depends on complementary first-last mile connections and innovative mobility services that
give SLO community members the confidence to leave their cars at home or become single-
car households.
The City has also recently affirmed that operating an independent transit service provides
unique benefits and tangible value to the community. The Transit Program Analysis findings
supplied evidence in support of maintaining an independent SLO Transit, alongside
recommendations to partner with San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Authority to
implement certain solutions at a regional scale. As the majority of transportation trips in San
Luis Obispo start or end outside of the City, pursuing thoughtful regional solutions that make it
easy to transfer between transit providers is key.
This Transit Innovations Study builds on these findings and recommends and prioritizes
innovations including critical technology upgrades for ongoing operations; technologies that
improve riders’ user experience; fare program updates for low-income, senior, and youth
populations; enhanced fixed-route service and complementary alternative mobility services,
and bus shelter and street improvements for rider safety and comfort. The City has never been
more ready to offer community members integrated multi-modal transportation options, new
ideas, and transformative solutions as it works steadfast to reach its 12% transit mode split
target over the next twelve years.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
2
SLO Transit Innovations Study
This SLO Transit Innovations Study evaluates opportunities for innovative technology and new
mobility services to support the City’s current transit network and help the City achieve its
established mode shift goals of 12% transit trips, 20% bicycle trips, and 18% of trips via
walking, carpools, and other forms by 2035.
The study aims to put forth actionable recommendations to improve fixed-route transit service,
explore alternative service modes, and broadly enhance transit as a viable alternative to private
automobile travel. By further investigating and implementing the new technologies and mobility
strategies, the SLO Transit Innovations Study strives to improve current transit operations and
restore ridership while also taking steps to enhance transit's potential to achieve diversity,
equity, and inclusion goals through affordable and dependable mobility options.
The SLO Transit Innovations Study, led by the external consultant IBI Group, provides
actionable recommendations that relate to transit and other innovative mobility concepts.
These recommendations were developed in response to needs identified by internal and
external transit staff and key stakeholders and were subsequently vetted and prioritized in a
stakeholder workshop. Ultimately, the study’s recommendations will be pursued through the
2024-25 Supplemental Budget, upcoming Short-Range Transit Plan update, and future
updates to the Climate Action Plan, Active Transportation Plan, and other applicable plans.
Innovations Evaluated by the Transit Innovation Study
In total, the study recommends 19 transit innovations for SLO Transit’s consideration, which
are categorized into the five themes below.
On-Board Technology Upgrades for Ongoing Operations
The first category “Critical Technology” includes upgrades that support ongoing operations
such as replacing computer-aided dispatch and automated vehicle locater systems
(CAD/AVL), upgrading automatic passenger counters, and replacing and improving camera
systems on fixed-route vehicles. Key stakeholders agreed these upgrades are necessary for
successful ongoing transit operations.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
3
Technologies that Improve Riders’ User Experience
The second category “User Experience” houses technology advancements that improve riders’
user experience. These technologies consist of the enhancement of real-time passenger
information, pursuing open loop payments through California Integrated Travel Project (Cal-
ITP), and establishing a Mobility-as-a-Service platform. An open-loop payment system—an
on-board technology that enables riders to pay for the bus via credit card or a transit card—
would reduce friction in the payment process and ensure that SLO Transit is accessible to the
next generation of younger transit users. Internal and external stakeholders agree that an open
loop payment system is best pursued at a regional level in coordination with San Luis Obispo
Regional Transit Authority (RTA), and that it should make it easy for low-income verified transit
users to access reduced fares.
Fare Program Updates to Increase Transit Opportunities
The “Fare Programs” category incorporates fare program updates that increase transit
accessibility. Ideas such as expanding the downtown access program, implementing fare
changes for students, seniors, and low-income riders, and exploring institutional partnerships
were grouped into this bucket. These fare program updates would enable SLO Transit to
become more convenient and affordable to key constituencies while also better connecting the
City’s suburbs to the downtown core. Key partnerships with RTA, Cal Poly, school districts,
hospitality businesses, and developers are crucial to getting more riders on regional transit. In
all cases, fare program updates must be paired with robust communications and marketing
efforts to ensure that residents and commuters are aware of the program/s and how to
participate.
Bus Shelter and Street Improvements for Rider Safety and Comfort
The final category “Shelters and Streets” covers physical improvements to the bus stops
themselves such as improved lighting, improved shelters, and sufficient bike parking. It also
touches on constructing mobility hubs to promote bus rider transfers to different mobility
options at strategic stops, and constructing bus bulb-outs at downtown stops to increase safety
and reduce bus travel time. Contributors to the workshop agreed that creating a safe,
comfortable, and secure environment was important to increasing ridership. Stakeholders
emphasized the importance of using a standardized design language and creating an ongoing
maintenance plan for this solution category.
Enhanced Service and Alternate Transit Options
The “Enhanced Service” category focused on improvements to SLO Transit’s fixed route
service as well as the addition of new alternative mobility options that could be operated by
SLO Transit or third parties. This category includes service enhancements that decrease
headways, launching car and bike share programs, and offering micro-transit services.
Stakeholders who participated in the Transit Innovation Study process overwhelmingly agreed
that enhanced service (i.e., running buses more often on popular fixed routes) is vital to
increasing ridership. As enhanced service often comes with a high price tag and staffing
burdens, there are typically trade-offs between a transit program’s fixed route geographic
coverage and its headways. To overcome this challenge, the study recommends implementing
enhanced service on certain routes with reduced coverage in other areas, as long as
alternative mobility services (i.e., on-demand micro-transit) are introduced provide a feasible
alternative for existing SLO Transit riders.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
4
Transit Innovation Study Recommendations
The study’s recommendations summarized in the table below aim to address SLO Transit
needs and further its goals of enhancing mobility, restoring ridership, and improving
technology. Each of the columns and the values displayed are described in more detail
throughout the report.
Relevance to SLO
This column evaluates the degree to which the respective solution maps to the needs of SLO
Transit and the City. Through extensive conversations with SLO Transit staff, City staff, and
stakeholders this categorization was developed and updated throughout the project to
characterize the interests of the community and of the organization relating to a given solution.
‘High’ relevance reflects a solution that directly maps to a need identified through the needs
assessment and that received high interest throughout the project. ‘Medium’ directly maps to
a lower priority need or high need and received moderate interest. ‘Low’ relevance solutions
generally reflect emerging trends that may address some needs for SLO Transit but received
lesser interest.
Impact to Ridership
Some recommendations will help directly restore ridership or aim to improve transit reliability
so as to expand ridership. These are coded as ‘High’ impact. ‘Medium’ impact
recommendations should help improve ridership but are expected to be less impactful than
high-ridership impact solutions. Other recommendations are internal planning efforts or
operational improvements that will help SLO Transit maintain service levels and efficient
operations but may not directly impact ridership. These are coded as ‘Low’ impact.
Timeframe
Recommendations are sorted into projects that can likely be completed in the short -term (1-2
years), medium term (2-3 years), or long-term (3+ years).
Cost
In line with purchasing policies from the City of San Luis Obispo, recommendations may be
considered low, medium, or high cost. Low-cost recommendations are Tier 1 purchases
(<$10,000 for professional services or <$15,000 for capital projects). Medium-cost
recommendations are Tier 2 or 3 purchases ($10,000-$70,000 for professional services or
$15,000-$200,000 for capital projects). High-cost recommendations are Tier 4 and above
purchases (<$70,000 for professional services or >$200,000 for capital projects).
Priority
This column provides an overall summary priority level considering stakeholder feedback and
all other factors presented in this table. ‘High’ priority items are recommended to be integrated
into near term policy, budgetary, and programmatic decisions, and thereby initiated within the
next 6-12 months. ‘Medium’ priority items are targeted to begin in 12-24 months. ‘Low’ priority
items, while still worth pursuing, have dependencies or other long range planning efforts that
make those efforts more realistic to be pursued in 24+ months. Priority is distinct from
‘Timeframe’ which only provides guidance on how long each effort may take to complete.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
5
Table 1: SLO Transit Innovations Study Recommendations
# Recommendation Category Relevance
to SLO
Impact to
Ridership Timeframe Cost Priority
1 Enhanced Service on Fixed Routes Enhanced
Service High High Medium High HIGH
2 Pursue open loop payments through
Cal-ITP
User
Experience High High Medium Medium HIGH
3 Replace CAD/AVL System on Fixed-
Route Vehicles
Critical
Tech High Low Short High HIGH
4 Upgrade Automatic Passenger
Counters on Fixed-Route Vehicles
Critical
Tech High Low Short Medium HIGH
5 Enhance Real-Time Passenger
Information
User
Experience Medium High Short Medium HIGH
6 Replace and Improve Camera
Systems
Critical
Tech High Low Short Medium MEDIUM
7 Fare Changes for Students, Seniors,
Low-Income Riders
Fare
Programs High High Short Low MEDIUM
8 Explore Institutional Partnerships Fare
Programs Medium High Medium Low MEDIUM
9 Pursue Micro-Transit Mobility
Services
Enhanced
Service Medium High Long Medium MEDIUM
10 Expand Downtown Access Program Fare
Programs High Medium Short Low MEDIUM
11 Launch a Bikeshare Program Enhanced
Service Medium Low Short Low MEDIUM
12 Install Lighting, Shelters, and Bike
Parking at Applicable Bus Stops
Shelter and
Streets Medium Medium Medium Medium MEDIUM
13 Establish a Mobility-as-a-Service
Platform
User
Experience Medium Medium Long High LOW
14 Investigate and Establish Mobility
Hubs
Shelter and
Streets Medium Medium Medium High LOW
15 Launch a Carshare Program Enhanced
Service Medium Low Medium Medium LOW
16 Implement a Transit Signal Priority
Strategy
Enhanced
Service Low Low Medium High LOW
17 Add Bus Bulb-outs Downtown Shelter and
Streets Medium Low Long Medium LOW
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
6
Introduction
The Transit Innovation Study evaluates opportunities for new technology and new delivery
modes that will support the City’s current transit network and help achieve its established mode
shift goals of 12% transit trips, 20% bicycle trips, and 18% of trips via walking, carpools, and
other forms by 2035. These goals emphasize the need to bolster transit and other active
transportation modes as viable alternatives to the private automobile. Historically, SLO Transit
has been largely focused on traditional fixed-route bus service. This study will lend insight into
new technologies and innovations to improve fixed-route service as well as innovative transit
concepts related to micro-transit, micro-mobility, fare structures, and more.
By further investigating and implementing the new technologies and mobility strategies
discussed in this plan, SLO Transit strives to improve current transit operations and restore
ridership while also taking steps to enhance transit's potential to achieve diversity, equity, and
inclusion goals through affordable and dependable mobility options.
The Transit Innovation Study is informed by and helps support the City’s many existing
planning documents, including the:
o Land Use Element of the General Plan which represents a generalized blueprint for
the future of the City of San Luis Obispo by setting forth a pattern for the development
of land within the City’s planning area.
o Circulation Element of the General Plan which aims to recognize implications of land
use policy on all modes of movement and establishes mode shift goals, policies,
standards, and implementation measures that work with the Land Use Element
update and address both existing and potential circulation opportunities and
deficiencies.
o Active Transportation Plan which sets forth goals for San Luis Obispo to become an
active transportation friendly city where people of all ages, incomes, backgrounds
and ability levels have access to sustainable transportation options that are healthy,
comfortable, convenient and affordable.
o Access and Parking Management Plan which provides context on commuter
transportation and identifies opportunities to improve parking policies and strategies
in an effort to encourage more sustainable modes of transportation.
o Climate Action Plan which establishes a Council adopted community-wide goal of
carbon neutrality by 2035 with an objective to achieve the mode split objective of 7%
transit use by 2030 and 12% transit use by 2035.
The Transit Innovation Study provides actionable recommendations that relate to transit and
other innovative mobility concepts for possible inclusion in the 2024-25 Supplemental Budget,
and future updates to the Climate Action Plan, Short-Range Transit Plan, Active Transportation
Plan, and other future applicable plan updates. The Transit Innovation Study also strives to
address diversity, equity, and inclusion goals through affordable and dependable mobility
options.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
7
1 Background
San Luis Obispo (SLO) Transit is a municipal system administered through the City’s Public
Works Department. SLO Transit plays a crucial role in providing safe transportation options for
students at the California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), residents, local employees,
and visitors. SLO Transit works with other departments within the City for ongoing planning
and improvement of mobility services in the region.
In addition, SLO also works with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
which serves as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and Metropolitan
Transportation Organization (MPO) for the County as well as San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (RTA) which operates the regional fixed-route and paratransit services. SLO Transit
contracts its operations for the provision of drivers, dispatching, road supervision, and
maintenance. Transdev (formerly First Transit) is the City’s current contractor.
The program’s services are provided via the City’s Transit Fund, which is made up of federal
funding, state funding, and local revenue. Like many agencies, ridership and farebox revenue
for SLO Transit have decreased since the COVID-19 pandemic. Restoring ridership numbers
to pre-pandemic levels remains a top priority for SLO Transit.
Currently, the transit program has eight fixed routes operating throughout the downtown and
surrounding area and maintains the following capital assets:
• 17 revenue vehicles and 2 support vehicles
• Operations and maintenance facility
• Bus wash system
• Transit center with sawtooth bays and four deluxe shelters
• 165 bus stops
In addition to SLO Transit, the City is serviced by the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (RTA). RTA provides intercommunity public transportation. RTA’s service area
includes all of San Luis Obispo County and extends into Santa Barbara County to the south.
RTA provides regional fixed-route service and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
complementary paratransit service (Runabout) for RTA fixed-route as well as SLO Transit
routes.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
8
Figure 1. SLO Transit Service Map
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
9
2 Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment
This section outlines the current technologies utilized by SLO Transit for operations and
administration as well as the technologies used by drivers and riders on-board. In addition, a
needs assessment was conducted to analyze the current state of SLO Transit’s fixed-route
transit technology and the needs that stem from those systems and related systems. It is
important to note that the list of needs developed for this plan, while critical to this effort, are
not exhaustive. Other needs identified in previous planning documents were considered in
creating recommendations. These included:
• Achieving mode split of 7% transit use by 2030 in pursuit of carbon neutrality, as outlined
in the Climate Action Plan and Short-Range Transportation Plan
• Reducing emissions through improving active transportation offerings and amenities
such as additional bike parking, as discussed in the Active Transportation Plan
• Easing the cost of transportation for low-income individuals, as described in the Access
and Parking Management Plan
• Need to reduce headways and improve on-time performance as identified in the Short-
Range Transportation Plan.
2.1 Stakeholders
To document existing systems and assemble a list of needs, virtual meetings were conducted
in January and February 2023 with City of San Luis Obispo staff and contracted staff, who
handle operations and maintenance on behalf of SLO Transit. These meetings included
discussions with key personnel and departments including transit planning, operations,
maintenance, administration, active transportation, sustainability, and finance.
Once the SLO Transit assembled the list of needs, it shared this list with relevant external
stakeholders including Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) members, Downtown SLO,
SLOCOG, the Chamber of Commerce, and RTA. These organizations continued to share
feedback and were involved throughout the remainder of the project as well.
2.2 Existing Systems
The technologies relevant to SLO Transit operations can be grouped into the following
categories:
• Onboard: Refers to technology systems installed onboard SLO’s bus fleet. These
systems often interface with the central systems through cellular data communications,
radio communications, or satellite.
• Central: Refers to systems that are installed for SLO operations, maintenance, and
planning. This includes central automatic vehicle location (AVL) components as well
as farebox software, camera software and maintenance management systems.
• Garage: Refers to systems that are installed at SLO’s garages and in the yard. These
systems are often interfaced with the central systems through a direct wired network
connection, and with onboard systems through wireless data communications access
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
10
points. This includes diagnostic software and electric charging components for battery
electric buses (BEBs).
• Public Systems: Public-facing systems are closely integrated with central systems but
disseminate information to the public via the Internet using an external customer
interface (e.g., SLO Transit website or third-party applications). These systems are
accessible outside the firewall to protect the central systems from external network
threats.
A high-level system interconnect diagram is provided in Figure 2 to show relationship
between various systems and technologies. Appendix A provides an inventory of these
existing systems and more details as to their function in the current transit environment.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
11
Figure 2: SLO Transit Existing Systems
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
12
3 On-Board Technology Upgrades for Ongoing Operations
Technologies impact every aspect of fixed-route services including planning, schedule
development, operations, maintenance, revenue management, providing timely information to
customers, and many others. In conjunction with the SLO Transit needs found in Section 2, an
industry scan of relevant transit technologies was prepared to help inform the possibilities SLO
Transit could pursue to improve operations.
Of the twelve technologies discussed in the industry scan, three solutions were identified as
particularly relevant to SLO Transit needs and priorities. These on-board technology
improvements are critical for maintaining ongoing fixed-route services and are notable pain
points for SLO Transit; unreliable vehicle location data, inconsistent passenger counts, and
aging camera systems place the agency at a disadvantage when it comes to maintaining
operations. This section provides a summary of three on-board technology solutions, their
relevance to SLO operations, and an estimate of costs involved with procuring each
technology.
Table 2: Recommendations related to Improvements to On-Board Technology
# Recommendation Relevance
to SLO
Impact to
Ridership Timeframe Cost Priority
3
Replace CAD/AVL
System on Fixed-Route
Vehicles
High Low Short High HIGH
4
Upgrade Automatic
Passenger Counters on
Fixed-Route Vehicles
High Low Short Medium HIGH
6 Replace and Improve
Camera Systems High Low Short Medium MEDIUM
3.1 CAD/AVL System Replacement
Computer Aided Dispatch/Automated Vehicle Location (CAD/AVL) technology provides tools
to track vehicle position at a predefined interval and provides tools to manage operations in
real-time from a centralized or remote-control center. CAD tools provide the capabilities to
communicate with drivers, monitor route and schedule adherence and respond to
events/incidents. AVL technology serves as a core component to many other transit
technology applications that rely on vehicle location (e.g., real-time passenger information
signage and on-board next stop announcements).
CAD/AVL systems also provide data for offline reporting and analyses. The system includes
mobile data computer (MDC) on vehicles that are equipped with schedule data and
communicate with a central control software in real-time.
Many CAD/AVL systems designed for fixed-route transit are feature-rich and boast
comprehensive integration with other transit systems (such as APCs, Headsigns, etc.).
However, there are also CAD/AVL Lite systems that can be cheaper and focus primarily on
vehicle tracking and microtransit capabilities. On-board features typically include GPS antenna
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
13
and receiver, on-board computer, mobile data terminal, and radio or cellular data
communications modem. Software is typically cloud-based and allows for operation on a
variety of central-end hardware.
Based on SLO Transit operational needs as shown in Figure 2, SLO Transit’s current CAD/AVL
system is not functioning properly and lacks many of the features critical for fixed-route
operations. Operations staff reported instances of the current system glitching and freezing,
and difficulties performing reporting. Staff also identified issues with incorrect vehicle locations
appearing on the SLO Transit app and vehicle estimated time of arrival (ETAs) not always
being correct.
Because the CAD/AVL system interfaces with critical components such as real-time passenger
information signs at SLO Transit Center, the SLO Transit application, and annunciators on
board, it means that sometimes, incorrect location data from the CAD/AVL system is being
shared, which affects the arrival times and stop announcements that riders see and hear when
using the bus. This has a direct impact on rider experience and impacts evaluations of the
system.
The replacement of the CAD/AVL system is a high priority recommendation that addresses
needs for improved dispatch, administration reporting, and customer service operations.
Despite limited impacts to ridership directly, the project team determined this solution directly
addresses a critical need relating to unreliable information and dysfunctional technology, and
that such a solution would greatly benefit current and future SLO Transit riders.
3.1.1 Cost
For the traditional CAD/AVL systems which would be recommended for fixed-route vehicles,
the major cost components are divided across three categories: central systems, onboard
systems and project implementation and testing. The cost for CAD/AVL systems is dependent
on the included features and functionality but is typically in the range of $15,000-$20,000 per
vehicle for onboard systems and $500,000-$1,500,000 for central software and systems, plus
10-20% of the total amount for project management, testing, documentation and training. In
addition, ongoing warranty and support costs can be significant, ranging from 10-20% of the
total project hardware, software, and implementation cost on an annual basis.
Total costs for a project of this size for SLO Transit could be on the lower side, depending on
the features included. For a fleet of SLO Transit’s size, an improved CAD/AVL system would
likely be in the range of $300,000-$500,000.
3.2 APC Replacement
Automated Passenger Counters (APCs) are useful tools for system planning, performance
monitoring and reporting. APCs provide detailed boarding and alighting information at each
doorway for each stop and time along a route. Data on passenger volumes and stop-level
passenger activity can be used to plan route changes, service level adjustments and
investments in bus stop amenities. APC technology consists of sensors located on the bus
(door-mounted or overhead) along with controllers and a central software that collects and
process the data.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
14
APC software can either be a stand-alone system or it can be integrated into a CAD/AVL on-
board computer. APC systems can provide real-time capacity data (through CAD/AVL system)
or provide data for offline analysis after download and post-processing. An integrated system
reduces additional post processing and allows for a single data repository.
SLO Transit’s existing APC system is run through the AVL system. It was installed on most of
the buses, but they have not worked as intended since installation. Because the APC system
directly estimates ridership, an improved APC system can provide 100% passenger mile data
for annual NTD reporting, which would eliminate need for extensive sampling and help improve
accuracy. This also directly impacts funding the agency may receive. It also impacts planning
efforts related to increasing ridership as it provides a helpful gauge of system performance.
3.2.1 Cost
APC system costs for onboard APC equipment range from $2,000 to $3,500 per vehicle for 2
door vehicles. APC software costs range from $10,000-$15,000 for software that does not
post-process counts to $50,000-$100,000 for software that does complex post-processing and
generates multiple reports and visual dashboards.
Total costs for SLO Transit would be near $75,000 for a system that does not perform post
processing, or $125,000 for a system that does include those functions.
3.3 Improved Camera Systems
Video surveillance is often used to ensure safety and deter theft or violence on vehicles.
Camera technology can also allow agencies to perform additional functions such as automatic
bus lane enforcement, passenger count, and incidence management. This can include
cameras (either IP or analog), a digital/network video recorder (DVR, NVR), a router or WLAN
to connect to a central system.
SLO Transit vehicles have two different camera systems. Most vehicles have older SEON
systems, while 3 buses have more modern cameras that interface with CAD/AVL software.
The two different systems result in procedural inconsistencies for data backup and incident
reporting. In addition, some of the equipment is older and becoming outdated.
Because of the inconsistent and aging systems, incidents that occur onboard are often
reviewed through DriveCam, which is reliable but only captures one angle and is not useful for
incidents that occur on the side of the bus. An improved camera system could allow SLO
Transit to capture multiple angles for incident reporting, allow for wireless transfer of data, and
standardize processes. The City would also benefit from ensuring WLAN functionality on new
buses for ease of data transfer in the future. Improved camera capabilities are considered a
short-term and high-need issue for safety and security purposes.
3.3.1 Cost
Costs for camera systems are largely contingent on the resolution of data capture and number
of cameras installed within a vehicle. For a typical 40-foot vehicle for a fleet of SLO Transit’s
size, the costs are as follows:
• On-Board Equipment and Installation:
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
15
o Hardware: $3,000-$8,000 per vehicle
o Integration with other systems, including emergency alarm and CAD/AVL for login
information tagging: $10,000 - $25,000, based on previous experience
integrating.
• Camera system software:
o $50,000-$200,000 for implementation, software, documentation, training, and
testing.
o $20,000-$100,000 per year for ongoing support (the higher end assumes hosted
software and data storage)
This would put total costs for a project of this size in the range of $150,000 to $200,000 for all
materials, software, and installation on 17 vehicles. This would not include ongoing storage
costs.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
16
4 Technologies that Improve Riders’ User Experience
When community members ride on SLO Transit, they use technology to find out when the bus
is coming, where they should wait, and to pay for their fare. As smartphone technology
becomes increasingly ubiquitous, SLO Transit has an opportunity to invest in technology that
reduces friction and increases convenience for bus riders. The user-facing technology
improvements recommended in this section are vital to operating a convenient transit system,
winning over the next generation of San Luis Obispo’s transit users, and seamlessly provide
discounted passes and reduced costs for low-income riders and other eligible community
members.
While SLO Transit riders would benefit from any improvements in payment, real-time
passenger information, and other trip planning technologies, this study recommends pursuing
user-facing technology improvements at a regional scale and in close collaboration with
community partners and key stakeholders including SLORTA, SLOCOG, Cal Poly, and social
services providers that manage income-verified programs in the community.
Table 3: Recommendations Related to Innovative Mobility Concepts
# Recommendation Relevance
to SLO
Impact to
Ridership Timeframe Cost Priority
2 Pursue open loop payments through Cal-
ITP, in coordination with RTA High High Medium Medium HIGH
3 Enhance Real-Time Passenger
Information Medium High Short Medium HIGH
13 Establish a Mobility-as-a-Service Platform Medium Medium Long High LOW
4.1 Enhanced Real-Time Passenger Information Systems
Real-Time Passenger Information Systems (RTPI) provide customers with information about
the nature and status of transportation services. RTPI systems and technology can vary
between the information they provide and how they are presented. In recent years, there has
been increased focus on providing schedule information in a standardized format (most
commonly General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) for integration with trip-planning
applications, real-time vehicle location signage, and systems that relay service-related alerts
to customers.
RTPI can also include enroute information, like on-board next stop announcements and
predictions for stop arrival times. RTPI technology consists of a real-time data feed with
prediction information, on-board audio and visual announcement components, stop dynamic
message signs (DMS), customer self-service tools, interactive voice response systems that
can be interfaced with scheduling systems and CAD/AVL to obtain static and real-time
information.
According to SLO Transit, the current RTPI signage at SLO Transit Center and the trip planning
application currently used by travelers don’t always reflect accurate times. This lack of correct
information can reduce trust in the system, which hurts ridership restoration efforts. An
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
17
improved and accurate RTPI system at SLO Transit Center and more accurate times relayed
through the app may improve customer experience, and in turn boost ridership efforts.
The improvement in the RTPI system will require an improvement in the entire real -time data
pipeline, including:
• Data generation as part of scheduling and CAD/AVL system, including onboard
announcements
• Real-time prediction information generation and dissemination
• Real-time information display and presentation (through display signs, mobile apps,
and other means)
Figure 3. An example of an RTPI sign at a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
Implementation Bus Stop
4.1.1 Cost
Costs for RTPI systems are contingent on the type of technology implemented on vehicles and
at stops and transit centers. Costs associated with each system are as follows:
• On-Board Announcements:
o Hardware: $1,000-$3,000 per vehicle
o Creation of announcement database with geo-triggers $30,000 - $50,000
• CAD/AVL System: covered in Section 3.1.1.
• Real-time prediction and dissemination system: $30,000 – 60,000 annually (Software
as a Service, subscription-based business model).
• LED/LCD wayside signage: $5,000 - $20,000 per location (dependent on the type of
signage, and needs for power and communications)
• E-paper wayside signage: $2,000 - $4,000
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
18
This would put total costs for a project of this size in the range of $30,000 to $100,000 for
backend prediction generations, plus some additional cost for stop-level predictions. For
budgeting purposes, SLO Transit could allocate $100,000 for total real-time passenger
information improvements.
4.2 Open Loop Payments
Open Payments refer to the use of finance sector cards or mobile payment apps that may be
used for payment of goods and services, offering more payment modes for customers. Open
payments can help reduce cash handling expenses and expensive ticket vending machines
(TVMs). The majority of the fare vendors are developing this functionality, and the system can
be integrated with mobile wallets which help users integrate pay directly through their Apple or
Google wallets.
While closed-loop payments utilizing tap cards (currently used by SLO Transit) can still play a
big role in introducing and maintaining incentives for regular riders, open loop payments can
facilitate ease of ridership particularly for visitors or infrequent users of the system. In previous
discussions, SLO Transit staff expressed strong interest in allowing customers to pay for transit
services with direct use of credit cards to make ridership easier. This recommendation also
has potential to increase ridership by attracting new riders who may not have a transit card or
app and do not wish to use one.
4.2.1 Cost
Like Cal-ITP and Clipper 2.0 projects in California, open loop payment projects are often
pursued at a state or regional level. The effort would require collaboration with financial
vendors and other stakeholders, but this would allow for pooling of resources in what can be
a cost-intensive endeavor, sometimes in the multiple millions of dollars. For an agency of SLO
Transit’s size, this collaborative approach would be recommended for implementing an open-
loop payment system.
4.3 MaaS Platform
Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) refers to the integration of various transportation services into a
single, comprehensive, and on-demand mobility application. MaaS offers users the value of
accessing mobility applications through one single application and payment channel (instead
of multiple ticketing and payment operations). MaaS applications can host a diverse menu of
transport options, including (but not limited to) public transport options, taxi and ridesharing
services, and active transportation options such as bikeshare, e-scooter share and walking
directions or a combination thereof when programs are established at SLO Transit. The
functions of a MaaS application may range, but typical functionality includes trip discovery, trip
planning, and trip payment options.
There are five different levels of MaaS, as depicted in Figure 4. While there have been several
implementations of MaaS in recent years, most agencies have yet to realize the full potential
of a Level 4 Integrated Application. Most United States-based examples are Level 0 or 1 MaaS
systems, with a couple examples of Level 2 and 3 deployments that the industry hopes to
progress to in the near future.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
19
Figure 4: Levels of MaaS
As SLO Transit pursues its bikeshare efforts and potentially adds other services like micro-
transit, a MaaS platform that can integrate those options and allow for booking and payment
in one place becomes particularly relevant. This idea is in line with goals expressed in the
Active Transportation Plan which discusses the need for a streamlined process for riders using
bikeshare, carshare, and transit in the future. A MaaS platform could also allow for easier
disbursement of transit passes and application of certain discounts, or a combined
transportation ‘wallet’ which allows users to spend money on a variety of services from one
account.
Because MaaS platforms thrive when a diverse set of transportation modes are presented, the
recommendation is that SLO Transit first identify and expand what those modes are, and then
establish and incorporate them into one application. This could also be pursued as a regional
effort incorporating services and improving planning, payment, and booking for not just SLO
Transit but also RTA and others. Overall, MaaS presents an opportunity to gain new riders
who may more easily compare and use a variety of transit modes when presented in a single
interface, but this is a long-term solution dependent on the success of individual services and
not a high priority need as identified in the needs assessment.
4.3.1 Cost
Costs for MaaS platforms vary depending on the number of modes, contract details with 3rd
party platforms and the level of integration. Contract costs may include development costs,
software integration fees, ticketing fees, transaction fees, and other operational costs.
Depending on the model used, costs can range from $100,000 into the millions depending on
the scale of the project. Grant funding is typically pursued to assist with this effort.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
20
5 Fare Program Updates to Increase Transit Accessibility
This category of recommendations focuses on pre-negotiated fares and other programs that
make it cheaper and easier for certain users to take the bus. There are dozens of ways to
create fare programs to increase ridership and provide affordable fares. This study
recommends improvements to fare programs for students, seniors and low-income riders that
would extend fare-free periods and better support community members who depend on the
bus to get around. It also recognizes an opportunity to explore additional institutional
partnerships with local businesses and developers, and to create a program that makes it
easier for organizations and associations to buy bulk bus passes for their members.
Lastly, this study recommends changes to SLO Transit’s existing Downtown Access Program
to reduce program enrollment burdens and increase benefits. It is important to note however,
that fare program updates and new offerings are only as successful as the marketing and
communications campaigns that spread the word in the community. Table 5 provides more
information on those programs along with their strengths and limitations.
Table 4: Recommendations Related to Fare Policies and Programs
# Recommendation Relevance
to SLO
Impact to
Ridership Timeframe Cost Priority
6
Implement Fare Changes for
Students, Seniors, and Low-
Income Riders
High High Short Low HIGH
12 Explore Institutional
Partnerships Medium High Medium Low MEDIUM
5 Expand Downtown Access
Program High Medium Short Low HIGH
Table 5: SLO Transit Fare Programs
NAME DESCRIPTION ELIGIBILITY STRENGTHS LIMITATIONS
Downtown
Access Pass
(DAP)
A physical or mobile
bus pass that is free
for employees in
downtown
To be used for
commute purposes to
and from downtown
Currently used by
about 30 people
Employees in the
Downtown SLO
Parking District
Renewed Annually
Ridership tracked
by physical/digital
taps
Reduces demand
for parking by
encouraging
downtown
employees to take
the bus
Available as both a
physical card and
through the Token
Transit App
Limited to
employees who
work in downtown
only
Requires renewal
efforts by the rider
about every three
months
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
21
Partnership
with Cal Poly
TAPS
Cal Poly students,
faculty, and staff ride
free
Must have valid Cal
Poly ID
Cal Poly affiliates
make up ∼58% of
annual passenger
trips
Is funded by
parking citation
revenue from the
Cal Poly
Excludes other
schools in and near
the city
There are also a variety of rider categories that qualify for free or reduced fare depending on the
circumstances. Those category-based policies are outlined in Table 6.
Table 6: SLO Transit Fare Categories
NAME DESCRIPTION ELIGIBILITY STRENGTHS LIMITATIONS
Summer
Youth Ride
Free
A regional program
that allows K-12
students to ride for
free during the
summer months by
using their student
ID as verification
Lasts from Mid-June to
Late August
Must be in grades K-12
with a student ID
Youth make up 4.8% of
population
Applies to all transit
agencies in the region
Is for summer
only and does
not provide
free service
for students
during the
school year
Senior and
Disabled Card
“VIP” riders 80+
years old ride free
A physical ID card
that allows riders to
purchase the
discount single-ride
and multiday passes
on SLO Transit
Disabled riders with
verification
Riders 65-79 Years Old
Legal residents of San
Luis Obispo
Elderly population
makes up ∼5.2% of
population and disabled
makes up ∼6.4%
Provides free or
discounted travel to all
riders 65+ years old and
riders with disabilities
Restricted to
legal City
residents
Requires
application
processes
and
identification
While these programs and policies go a long way toward providing affordable rides and incentivizing
transit ridership, there are several steps SLO Transit could take to further bolster incentives and expand
policies to best recruit and maintain riders.
5.1 Fare Changes for Student, Senior, and Low-Income Riders
Providing accessible fare options can help riders get to destinations, shorten boarding times,
and welcome new riders to the transit system. The suggestions below expand on the current
accessible fare programs offered at SLO Transit for student, senior, and low-income riders.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
22
5.1.1 Fare-Free Periods
Fare-free periods are periods in which SLO Transit offers free fares for riders. Currently, SLO
offers Cal-Poly students and K-12 students free fares during the summer by presenting their
student IDs to drivers.
To increase fare-free periods, it is recommended that SLO Transit implements the following
suggestions:
o Extend student free period beyond summer or to include holidays
o Extend the program to allow Seniors access to free rides for part of the year
5.1.2 Fare-Free Categories
Fare-free categories are a type of fare program where a specific rider demographic or fare
category does not need to pay for fares at any time. These programs are typically supported
by either an eligibility verification program, fare collection technology, or in the simplest
instances, by simply requiring operators to visually verify a known government agency issued
ID.
To expand fare-free categories it is recommended that SLO Transit implement the following:
• Low-Income Rider Pilot Program. This would allow riders who qualify for federally
funded social welfare programs, for example, to receive discounted rides. The
recommendation would involve starting this as a 12-month pilot, under the purview of
the same staff that manages the
• Senior/Disabled and VIP program. The discounts and pass types can be the same
as Senior/Disabled as well, but further market and rider research is recommended
before confirming program eligibility and discounts.
5.2 Institutional Program Recommendations
Institutional Pass Programs are institutional affiliate-oriented fare programs that provide
discounted or free travel for affiliates of participating organizations. Institutional programs are
typically supported by a designated point of contact from each institution who serves as a
coordinator and point of contact between the transit agency and employees.
The organizations benefit by paying an upfront cost to give their employees free or subsidized
transit for the decided duration of time. The transit agencies benefit by receiving program fees
that are independent from the affiliate use, or sometimes tied to the total population of the
affiliates within the institution, making an institutional program a reliable source of funding.
In this model, the eligibility criteria are set by the transit agency and the institutional partner
through program policies:
• Participants – all affiliates or defined subsets (e.g., off-campus students only)
• Services – full system or specific routes
The program can be funded by participating organizations through:
• Standard fee schedule (e.g., price per participant, number of participants)
• Negotiated funding agreements (specific to one organization)
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
23
• Price per trip/transaction
In the cases where programs are tied to fare transactions or trips by affiliates, the agencies
are then required to implement technology to account for those fare transactions separately
from other transactions. Institutional pass programs are typically supported by fare collection
technology, with riders typically required to validate their affiliation through ID cards, affiliated
smart cards, or more recently, mobile app-based fare media.
Below are core recommendations for expanding the current institutional programs at SLO
Transit:
• Expand Cal Poly SLO Ridership program to other organizations served by SLO
Transit. A few partnerships that could be explored include:
o Cuesta College
o County of San Luis Obispo Government
o Various Unified School Districts
o Surrounding motels and hotels
▪ Hotel San Luis Obispo
▪ Garden Street Inn
▪ SLO Brew Lofts
▪ Granada Hotel & Bistro
▪ Hostel Obispo
• Simplify process for bulk bus passes, expanding this option beyond just developers.
5.3 Downtown Access Passes
The Downtown Access Pass is a physical or electronic bus pass that can be used by
employees in downtown San Luis Obispo to ride the bus for free. It is intended to encourage
bus commutes to and from downtown and is currently used by about 30 people. All employees
that work in the Downtown SLO Parking District are eligible for the program, however,
utilization of this program is relatively low. There are two ways SLO Transit could consider
expanding the program to boost ridership.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
24
Figure 5: Downtown Access Pass Program Boundaries
5.3.1 Geographic Expansion
The eligibility area for the Downtown Access program was designed to help alleviate the
demand for parking in the downtown area while providing a transit benefit to its employees.
There may be additional areas that would benefit from similar programs.
Key areas of expansion are districts that are already relatively well served by existing transit
routes and have existing businesses and population. Any areas with new housing
developments, notably mixed-use developments are also recommended places to consider.
Looking at SLO Transits current service, the following areas are:
o The Historic Railroad District
o South Higuera St. near SLO Public Market
o Mill Street Historic District
o Old Town Historic District
5.3.2 Policy Changes
Policy changes will also play a large part in expanding the program. The project team
recommends SLO Transit transform Downtown into a fare-free boarding zone for all riders.
This policy benefits riders who are both leaving downtown and traveling with the downtown
fare free zone and further encourages transit use as the primary mode of transportation
downtown. Further analysis to farebox ratio should be incorporated in making this decision,
but initial review indicates farebox revenue impacts would be minimal for a small enough
boarding and alighting area.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
25
Another recommendation would be to improve the DAP enrollment and reenrollment process.
Currently, eligibility expires after 90 days, and users must email SLO Transit with identification
to have their pass extended. Then they must send an annual renewal email as well. Eliminating
the 90-day reverification requirement and making this simply an annual renewal process could
facilitate participation and simplify program administration. Instead of email, it is also
recommended that users can enroll online by completing an easy to access form, which could
be made available by the City through the Laserfiche platform. Another possibility to improve
the process would be to provide reloadable smartcards limited to downtown access as the
pass that riders receive.
The project team also recommends that the program be expanded to include regional services
such as RTA as well. While additional coordination may be required, this would further bolster
enrollment and could attract more people to transit.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
26
6 Bus Shelter and Street Improvements for Rider Safety
and Comfort
Bus stops are a ubiquitous symbol of transit systems that may influence perception of the
system. For riders, a bus stop can provide informational value, in addition to comfort and
security while waiting for a bus. These features can vary widely from stop to stop and include
amenities ranging from information systems that can provide riders with arrival estimates, to
benches and coverings for comfortability. It is critical for bus stops to reinforce comfortability
and safety to maintain and attract riders. Security for transit riders will be attained through
updating and thoroughly maintaining bus stop amenities. Accessibility will be increased
through the interrelation of physical improvements, enhanced service, and updated
technology.
Furthermore, bus stops have been a focus for many transit agencies’ accessibility
improvements, after the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1992. Outcomes
from studies have also shown that increased levels of amenities at bus stops can make elderly
and disabled riders comfortable with using transit systems and that appropriate amenities can
increase overall appeal. This study recommends three types of bus stop enhancements to
improve rider experiences and outcomes.
Table 7: Recommendations Related to Bus Stop Enhancements
# Recommendation Relevance
to SLO
Impact to
Ridership Timeframe Cost Priority
12
Install Lighting,
Shelters, and Bike
Parking at Applicable
Bus Stops
Medium Medium Medium Medium MEDIUM
14
Investigate and
Establish Mobility
Hubs
Medium Medium Medium High LOW
17 Add Bus Bulb-outs
Downtown Medium Low Long Medium LOW
6.1 Update Bus Stop Amenity Inventory
SLO Transit currently operates 165 bus stops, outfitted with varying amenities. While some
stops feature modern and up to date technology and design, much of the infrastructure that
supports SLO Transit is aged and is nearing the end of its lifespan.
As shown in Figure 6, the most feature-rich amenities at bus stops are located at the downtown
transit center. Here, riders can find four deluxe shelters with seating, route maps, real-time
arrival information and refuse bins. The road features a concrete pad for bus stops, and
sawtooth bays to accommodate boarding for multiple routes.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
27
Figure 6: Downtown SLO Transit Center
By contrast, Figure 7 is representative of most other SLO Transit stops, that have significantly
fewer amenities. Most stops feature static bus arrival information in the form of printed
schedules, smaller waiting areas and more outdated shelters. Others have just a route and
destination indicator sign with no seating, shelter, or refuse bins.
Figure 7: Orcutt at Laurel Bus Stop
However, there needs to be a complete inventory of all bus stops, their associated amenities,
and ridership at each stop to best determine priority locations for improvements. One way to
assess priority locations is by utilizing stop level ridership data. Simply put, the more a bus
stop is used, the more riders it serves and the more it may benefit from upgrades and
improvements.
The process for identifying these high ridership stops generally includes sorting Automated
Passenger Counter (APC) stop-level data from highest to lowest. If APC data is unavailable or
unreliable, fare collection information can also be used to evaluate boardings and lightings at
each stop. Neither APC nor fare data was reliable enough or available for this study. Therefore,
performing a complete bus stop amenity inventory and ridership analysis to properly assess
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
28
the benefits to each stop is recommended. This process would not yield any direct benefits to
ridership but would help determine appropriate improvements discussed in subsequent
sections.
6.1.1 Costs
A full bus stop amenity inventory and analysis could cost around $25,000 which would likely
include inventory as well as location specific recommendations based on ridership data.
6.2 Lighting Improvements
Adequate lighting is an important component to safety and security at bus stops. When existing
streetlights don’t provide adequate lighting, proper lighting should be provided to ensure the
safety and security of all transit riders. Bus stops should also be visible from nearby buildings,
roads, near crosswalks and well-lit so transit riders and bus operators are able to locate the
stop. Lighting can be affixed within bus stop shelters or on bus sign poles. Lighting can often
leverage solar power for operation.
Lighting improvements was expressed as a high priority for SLO Transit, and identifying
appropriate locations is contingent on the analysis mentioned in Section 6.1.
6.2.1 Costs
Costs for lighting improvements are contingent on the complexity of installation, wattage and
other factors. Prices range between $1,000 to $15,000.
6.3 Shelter Improvements
Shelters or shade coverings at bus stops provide riders with increased comfort regardless of
the time of the year. Shelters can reduce the impact of winds and provide relief for rain or
intense sunshine. Shelters can also house a variety of amenities for riders that can improve
satisfaction with wait times, improve safety perceptions, and provide information systems.
Through previous discussion, adequate shade and shelter improvements were listed as high
priority items from SLO Transit engineering team. After the full inventory described in Section
6.1 is complete, priority can be placed on making improvements to shelter at locations with the
highest ridership without shelter.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
29
Figure 8: South at Parker (E) Bus Stop
6.3.1 Cost and Implementation
Cost of shelters may vary based on the complexity of their design, but generally have a base
cost of at least $4,0001. As a general rule, transit shelters are recommended at all stops with
more than 30 riders per day. In addition, shelters should be considered at locations that are
exposed to weather, at transfer points or at stops with relatively high use by seniors and
children. Implementation of shelter improvements is contingent on the analysis mentioned in
Section 6.1.
6.4 Bike Parking
Supplying adequate bike parking at bus stops and transit centers can supplement transit
ridership by enhancing access to stop-adjacent destinations and boosting intermodal
connectivity. Often, this takes the shape of bike corrals or dedicated bike lockers near bus
shelters. Most of the bike racks offered in SLO are like those shown in Figure 9, which offer
on-street parking for 2-3 bicycles on the sidewalk.
1 Source: Metro Transit https://www.greatermadisonmpo.org/planning/documents/BusStopAmenitiesStudy.pdf
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
30
Figure 9: Bike racks at Chorro and Monterey St
Selection of the type of bike parking an agency offers is contingent on the volume of bike traffic
on a given road, weather, and available space. This ranges from on-street bike parking (e.g.,
corrals or U-rack clusters) to on-demand parking options such as Bike Link lockers. On-street
bike racks should be located close to, without being directly in front of entrances of high
demand locations for bicyclists and can take the place of one to two vehicle parking spaces
where bicycle parking demand is high and sidewalk space is constrained. These corrals
typically provide parking for 6 bikes (per single parking space) or 18 bikes for two 10’ parking
spaces.
For more long-term parking options, some agencies or organizations install dedicated bike
lockers that provide bicyclists with a secure bike locker that keeps the bike clean, dry, and
ready to ride any time of the year. These lockers typically have a higher installation cost and
are offered to bicyclists at an hourly or monthly rate. CalPoly offers this service at 14 locations
across the university’s campus (See Figure 10).
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
31
Figure 10: CalPoly Bike Lockers Located on Village Dr.
6.4.1 Costs
Costs for bike racks and lockers are contingent on the type of infrastructure chosen, and how
many bicycles can park at the given location. Cost estimates can be found below:
• Single U-style bike rack (1-2 bicycles): $125-150 per rack
• Contemporary U-style bike corral (6-8 bicycles): $450-800 per corral
• Bike lockers (1 bike per locker): ~$2000 per locker.
Single-occupancy vehicle trips dominate transportation mode splits in most cities, including San Luis
Obispo. To reduce traffic and achieve more sustainable outcomes, a much larger percentage of people
taking transit trips alongside other modes will be necessary. One way to achieve that increase in transit
share is to incentivize public transit use by implementing initiatives to provide strategic advantages to
transit operations in the transportation network. These transit priority strategies allow transit to be more
competitive on travel times, reliability, comfort, and convenience as compared to other vehicles.
Some examples of transit priority measures include bus-only lanes, signal priority for transit vehicles, or
other physical or regulatory modifications that give public transit priority over other vehicles.
Studies of various deployments have shown that the cities with clear priority policies and strategic
implementation plans have had the most successful deployments. It is critical to identify individual
initiatives within the larger deployment and assign priority levels according to the city’s predefined
criteria such as budget, resource usage, and schedule.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
32
Initial projects are often selected based on their ability to demonstrate the benefits of the measures so
that they can serve as benchmarks for future implementations. It can also help in placing standards for
organizing planning work as well as drawing up a guidebook for including external and internal
stakeholders who play an important role in the overall success of the project.
6.5 Mobility Hubs
Mobility hubs are places in communities that bring together services such as public transit,
bikeshare, carshare and other options in one place to provide first -last mile solutions without
use of a private vehicle. Mobility hubs are typically located where transit services already come
together, or in communities and locations where transportation is needed the most to support
transit connectivity and ridership as well as improved overall mobility for the region.
Mobility choices are constantly evolving and features of a mobility hub are tailored to the
unique needs of an individual community. When executed properly, they not only cater to the
transportation needs of today, but those of the future as well. Implementing one or more
mobility hubs in San Luis Obispo would require follow-up work to identify specific locations
most beneficial to SLO Transit. One location of interest would be SLO Transit Center given the
existing confluence of fixed-route service. Figure 11 shows an example mobility hub mock up
from San Diego with 12 different services and amenities, including bikeshare, package
delivery, EV charging and more.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
33
Figure 11: Mobility Hub Example (Source: SANDAG)
6.5.1 Costs
Funding for mobility hub projects depends on the types of amenities provided, location of the
hub, and more. Funding varies from traditional government grants and dedicated revenue
streams to more cooperative implementation partnerships. In general, project costs range
between $250,000 - $2 million for complete hubs, including planning, design, construction, and
marketing. One approach the City could take is testing a few low-cost amenities at a central
location and testing the viability of the hub concept, without committing to resources that
cannot be later removed or altered. Additional investment could then be applied to high-
performing mobility hub locations.
6.6 Bus Bulb Outs
Bus bulb-outs are curb extensions that are placed in line with curb-side parking areas and help
passengers board and alight in travel lane itself. This helps eliminate the need for buses to pull
in and out of travel lanes and reduces the overall dwell time buses incur from it, in-turn making
transit service faster and more and reliable. Bus bulb-outs also provide spaces for essential
amenities like wayfinding maps, bio-swells, transit shelters, and others, that plays an important
role in enhancing the overall experience of the transit user.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
34
While the length and width of the extensions are allowed to vary somewhat based on street
geometry, vehicle types, and urban context, the length should be about two buses long,
especially at far side stops and routes with frequent service, so that buses do not block the
intersection while queuing up. The width should be enough to deploy a wheelchair accessible
lift onto the bulb. Another important factor is to keep in mind at the design stage is to include
cut throughs for easy movement of bikes, so that it doesn’t block a bike lane, if present on the
approach.
Figure 12: Bus Bulb Outs (Source: NACTO)
6.6.1 Costs
The price range for bus bulbs can range between $15,000 and $70,000 per bulb and
depends on variables such as drainage needs, utility relocation, construction materials and
patron amenities2.
2 PedSafe http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=16
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
35
7 Service Enhancements
Service enhancements are instrumental to improving current rider experiences and to
attracting future riders. Community stakeholders unanimously agree that “enhanced service
on fixed routes” is the number one recommendation that is capable of increasing SLO Transit
ridership. Specifically, focused efforts on decreasing headways on priority routes has been
underscored as a preferred method to streamline and develop confidence towards transit
within riders.
In addition, there are several newer mobility concepts that may help improve a city or region’s
transportation ecosystem. These concepts focus on services and mobility improvements
beyond traditional fixed-route and on-demand service that transit agencies are typically
expected to provide. When implemented, these concepts can help to provide a more holistic
and complete approach to transportation which may help reduce car-dependence and
emissions in line with San Luis Obispo’s mode split objectives and carbon neutrality goals.
Table 8: Recommendations Related to Service Enhancements
# Recommendation Relevance
to SLO
Impact to
Ridership Timeframe Cost Priority
1 Enhance Service on
Fixed Routes High High Medium High HIGH
9 Pursue Micro-Transit
Mobility Services Medium High Long Medium MEDIUM
11 Launch a Bikeshare
Program Medium Low Short Low MEDIUM
15 Implement Carshare
Program Medium Low Medium Medium LOW
16 Implement a Transit
Signal Priority Strategy Low Low Medium High LOW
7.1 Enhanced Service on Fixed Routes
One of the most critical needs identified by SLO Transit and stakeholders was the need to
improve existing fixed-route bus service. While several strategies in this study relate to that
effort (i.e., improving onboard technology, investing in transit-friendly infrastructure), this
section refers primarily to planning strategies that can be utilized to facilitate more frequent
service. Improving frequency is one of the most direct ways of transporting more riders and
improving evaluations of the system.
According to the most recent Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), SLO Transit averages 3,615
daily boardings on weekdays, and roughly 950-1,200 boardings on weekends. Per the National
Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) categorizations, that weekday ridership
number falls under ‘moderate volume’, which generally warrants headways between 10 and
15 minutes.3 Even along SLO Transit’s highest ridership routes (routes 3 and 4, which
3 NACTO https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/introduction/service-context/transit-frequency-volume/
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
36
constitute roughly half of all SLO service) headways are occurring at 30-minute intervals, or
two buses per hour. As updates to the SRTP are made, the City should consider improving
frequency along these two routes on weekdays, particularly during the academic year, to
accommodate more passengers and improve service performance. If any other routes or
periods of time are determined to be moderate or high demand through the course of the City’s
SRTP update, those routes and periods should also be considered for frequency
improvements. Consideration of increased service frequency (or headways) needs to consider
passenger transfer behavior and timed or pulse transfer policy.
Given the stated priority of these improvements, the project team recommends these
modifications be explored further while updating the SRTP over the next year, and
implemented shortly thereafter (within two years), acknowledging that some improvements
may take longer to implement than others.
There are several strategies to improve fixed-route service frequency. Those that are
particularly relevant to the SLO operating environment are:
1. Optimizing Existing Routes: Optimizing routes can reduce wait times by better
aligning service with peak demand and can further reduce travel times by improving
transfers between routes. It can also bolster reliability by ensuring proper buffer times
to accommodate delays, resulting in more predictable and efficient service. This
strategy may involve modifications to existing routes or changes to schedules to
accommodate specific stops more frequently. Implementation of schedule and route
changes is often done in phases, to allow for continuous monitoring and fine-tuning to
ensure the schedules meet passenger needs and sufficiently reduce wait times. It's
critical that any such changes be communicated to the public in advance.
2. Establishing Express Bus Services: Express buses offer quicker, skip-stop service
along predetermined routes. Express service can often drastically reduce travel times
and are particularly useful if there are specific origins and destinations with high
demand that are not sufficiently served by current routes. For example, express routes
could be explored as a faster service to get downtown. This can also work to promote
economic development by providing quicker access to business districts, job centers,
and shopping areas.
3. Increasing Available Fleet and Drivers: Putting more buses on the road, especially
during peak periods, is one of the most direct ways to decrease headways. While this
does come with cost and hiring drivers is still difficult for many agencies like SLO Transit
at this time, adding to this capacity allows for more buses to be dispatched and can
drastically improve frequency. It can also serve as a reliability backstop by providing
maintaining service when a bus faces mechanical problems or delays.
4. Expanding Service Operating Hours: Extending service hours can help ensure
passengers are able to rely on transit throughout the day and night. This strategy
should be implemented only if data suggests there is a demand for trips outside of
current operating hours. However, such changes were made in the 2016 SRTP and
will likely be valuable to revisit again. This expansion does not affect the time between
buses but rather overall frequency of buses visiting a given stop and improves transit
accessibility. It can be particularly useful for those working irregular hours. This strategy
also affects the schedule optimization process outlined above.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
37
Evaluating where and when to make these changes will require several data sources that should
be used when updating the SRTP. These include:
• Ridership Data: To understand passenger demand and ridership patterns, including
transfers.
• Historical Performance Data: To assess on-time performance, delays, and regular
service interruptions.
• Stop Utilization Data: Information about the number of passengers boarding and
alighting at each stop, helping to identify high demand stops and areas.
• Travel Time Data: Data on the time it takes for buses to travel between stops, helping
to pinpoint areas with significant delays.
• Traffic Data: Information including traffic congestion, road conditions, and
infrastructure that might affect bus service speeds.
• Demographic Data: Demographic information about the areas surrounding stops and
routes, which can provide insights into the potential demand for transit service.
• Origin-Destination Data: To determine passenger travel patterns and the need for
express routes.
Once the data has been analyzed and specific implementations of these strategies has been
finalized, the City should also ensure that key performance indicators related to frequency of
service are up to date and able to track performance by any given time interval. Important KPIs
for evaluating frequency include:
• Ridership: Has the number of passengers changed by route or route segment?
• Headways: How frequently are buses operating along a given route in one hour? Is this
number below the targeted threshold (i.e., 15 minutes)?
• Average Wait Time: How long are passengers waiting for a vehicle when they arrive at
a stop?
• Customer satisfaction: How happy are customers with bus frequencies? Can they rely
on fixed-route transit to get them where they need to go in a timely manner? Are transfer
times coordinated amongst route schedules?
Tracking these variables should allow the City to report on the impact of frequency improvements
and identify specific areas in which further improvement may be warranted. Further, it is
important to consider the impact on transportation equity and accessibility for vulnerable or
underserved populations - evaluate whether increased headways disproportionately affect
certain communities.
7.1.1 Costs
The cost of implementing any frequency improvements can be quite high. While some minor
modifications to schedules and routes may be relatively inexpensive, hiring additional drivers,
implementing express bus service, and expanding operating hours can add hundreds of
thousands of dollars in operating costs. New buses, particularly electric buses, are typically in
the range of one million dollars as well. Although these costs are high, research shows that the
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
38
benefits of improved frequency can outweigh the costs by multiple fold.4 Funding sources to
assist with these costs are discussed further in section 8.2.
7.2 Pursue Microtransit Mobility Services
In addition to traditional fixed-route service improvements, there are several opportunities to
implement on-demand mobility or fixed-route microtransit that may help supplement current
service and further expand ridership. This section outlines a step-by-step approach to
determining what specific alternative mobility transit solution would be most appropriate for SLO
Transit’s needs and the impacts on cost and ridership.
7.2.1 Identifying Zones or Market Segments of Focus
This is the first step in the process for determining if alternative service is necessary and
feasible is establishing zones or market segments to focus on. This will provide a better
understanding of what locations and geographic span is being considered for something like
microtransit service, and what riders that are not currently being served by fixed route would
be served by new modes. This is important before using the framework described below to
select an alternative/supplemental service solution.
7.2.2 Using the Ridership and Cost Assessment Model
A Cost and Ridership Estimation Model was developed to assist the City in the planning and
deployment of, or modifications to, mobility service scenarios in the future. The model can be
found as an attachment.
Once zones or market segments have been established as areas of focus, the ridership and
cost assessment tool can be used to evaluate the impacts of each proposed alternative service
model to see what would be most beneficial to SLO Transit. Specific variables of the model
are pre-filled with industry-informed values but can be modified by any user to calculate costs
and ridership per any defined set of criteria.
It is recommended that SLO Transit follow this process for evaluating and selecting alternative
transit services to complement fixed-route service and further expand mobility offerings.
7.3 Implement Bikeshare Program
Bike sharing is one example of micromobility in action. Typically, micromobility refers to small,
lightweight vehicles used by one person to travel distances usually less than 10 miles.
Typically, travel using these modes does not exceed roughly 15 MPH. While some personal
devices like skateboards, roller skates, and hoverboards may fall under the category of
micromobility, this category largely consists of bikes, e-bikes, and e-scooters.
Many cities offer access to shared bikes as part of a micromobility program. These programs
can vary widely in size and structure as well as the types of devices provided. While some
4 Human Transit https://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
39
cities offer shared bikes with fixed docking locations around the city, others offer bikes that are
“dockless” and can be parked anywhere (though even in these cases, parking regulations such
as “lock-to” requirements can be implemented). Cities typically partner with third-party
companies for the provision, deployment, and maintenance of micromobility devices.
Monitoring of the program can either be done by reporting and coordination between cities and
companies or through other third-party software monitoring and tracking tools.
Bikeshare programs can play a major role in addressing first-last mile transit concerns and
offer relatively affordable rides to the general public for trips within a predefined geographic
area. Bikeshare is particularly appealing for densely populated communities where residents
and visitors can travel to several key destinations within a relatively short trip.
Bikeshare has been of particular interest to the San Luis Obispo community for some time. As
outlined in the City’s Active Transportation Plan, the City has already been engaged in a pilot
bikeshare program in partnership with Cal Poly and is interested in expanding the program to
a wider area. The City has been working to identify potential locations for future bikeshare
stations in pursuit of this effort.
7.3.1 Costs
Costs to implement a city-managed bikeshare program typically range from $3,000 to $5,000
per bike. These costs include the bike itself but also docking stations, rental kiosks, and other
minor capital costs. For programs delivered by third-parties, particularly used in dockless bike
scenarios, contracts can be cheaper or of no cost to the city and require less direct oversight
by staff. SLO Transit is most interested in pursuing a third-party provided docked bikeshare
system at no cost to the City.
7.4 Implement Carshare Program
Carsharing is a type of car-rental service in which passengers can rent vehicles for hours or
days at a time. This is in contrast to traditional car-rental services which charge by the day and
typically only allow for pickup at brick-and-mortar locations. Carsharing is often provided under
two models: peer-to-peer rentals and company-based rentals. Peer-to-peer rentals (like Turo)
allow individual car owners to lease their vehicle to others looking to borrow a car for a hours
or days at a time. Company-based rentals involve a company (like ZipCar) owning vehicles
and often renting parking spaces from a city, and then renting those vehicles to individuals for
either hours or days.
Carsharing aims to provide additional flexibility in travel to those who may not own a car. Like
ridesharing (e.g., Uber, Lyft) it can allow people to take trips otherwise inaccessible without a
vehicle. In addition to affordability and convenience, carsharing can help alleviate emissions
by reducing reliance of personal vehicles. Often, carsharing services include both app-based
and web-based interfaces for reserving, booking, and paying for rentals.
For SLO Transit, carsharing will likely not have a large impact on ridership. However, it does
support car light and car free lifestyles, which are key to achieving the mode split goals the
City has established. Beyond furthering those goals, it can also provide access to key
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
40
destinations for those who may not have a private vehicle, further expanding mobility offerings
for all groups.
7.5 Implement a Transit Signal Priority Strategy
Single-occupancy vehicle trips dominate transportation mode splits in most cities, including
San Luis Obispo. To reduce traffic and achieve more sustainable outcomes, a much larger
percentage of people taking transit trips alongside other modes will be necessary. One way to
achieve that increase in transit share is to incentivize public transit use by implementing
initiatives to provide strategic advantages to transit operations in the transportation network.
These transit priority strategies allow transit to be more competitive on travel times, reliability,
comfort, and convenience as compared to other vehicles.
Some examples of transit priority measures include bus-only lanes, signal priority for transit
vehicles, or other physical or regulatory modifications that give public transit priority over other
vehicles.
Studies of various deployments have shown that the cities with clear priority policies and
strategic implementation plans have had the most successful deployments. It is critical to
identify individual initiatives within the larger deployment and assign priority levels according
to the city’s predefined criteria such as budget, resource usage, and schedule.
Initial projects are often selected based on their ability to demonstrate the benefits of the
measures so that they can serve as benchmarks for future implementations. It can also help
in placing standards for organizing planning work as well as drawing up a guidebook for
including external and internal stakeholders who play an important role in the overall success
of the project.
7.5.1 Conducting a TSP Plan
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) is an operational strategy that facilitates the movement of transit
vehicles through traffic-signal controlled intersections. Some key benefits of implementing a
TSP project include reducing queues, minimizing delays, and decreasing travel time for
emergency vehicles. TSP can improve traffic flow and safety and enhance public response.
By reducing time lost at traffic signals, TSP can also reduce bus running time; and with
conditional priority one can reduce the variability in the running time. This can lead to improved
transit service and increased transit attractiveness.
A TSP plan would be a follow-up project and should be largely considered if there continue to
be traffic impacts along specific routes post-construction. A TSP plan would likely follow the
process identified herein.
7.5.1.1 Community Engagement
Community engagement is a critical component of any planning study. For transit priority
measures, constituents and users of the system can play a key role in identifying transit
reliability issues and travel time delays. Stakeholders can also be consulted when developing
a list of what transit traffic measures are realistic for SLO Transit’s context and the impact
those adjustments may have on other related services or programs. A few ways to engage the
public on these topics may include onboard passenger surveys, online surveys disseminated
through the website or social media, and in-person tabling at local community events.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
41
7.5.1.2 Data Collection and Analysis
Survey data can be combined with operations data to identify choke points, high delay areas,
and other corridors that may require treatments depending on KPIs. Areas where high ridership
routes currently operate with recurring delay are ideal candidates for improvements. Some of
the operational data that can be used to find to determine these areas of focus include:
• Ridership by stop and by route
• Travel time
• Vehicle delay
o Running delay: delays on on-time performance associated with traffic on a
route
o Signal delay: delays related to intersection red lights
o Merge delay: delays associated with buses pulling over from a general traffic
lane to a bus stop, or from a bus stop back into general traffic
• Passenger delay
o Load delay: delays associated with boarding and alighting of passengers.
Typically weighted by ridership.
• Revenue vehicles/hour
Once a list of potential sites has been identified from the data, a number of additional factors
may help the City narrow down the list of sites and determine which treatments to pursue. This
analysis includes examination of:
• Physical constraints
o Existing curb-to-curb roadway capacity opportunities
o Locations of bus stops relative to intersections
• Infrastructure jurisdiction analysis
o Jurisdiction that manages and owns each identified roadway segment and
immediately adjacent bridges, underpasses, overpasses, ramps, etc.
o Jurisdiction that manages and owns each traffic signal along each identified
segment of roadway
• Pedestrian, bus stop, and accessibility considerations:
o Number of current bus stops impacted
o Inventory of existing stop amenities (shelters, floating stop, etc.)
• General pedestrian conditions assessment
o Curb ramps and other accessibility needs
o Street crossings and pedestrian safety
o Other items identified by the project team
• Existing or planned bike infrastructure.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
42
o Future bike infrastructure as identified in the SLO Active Transportation Plan
• Existing or planned roadway investments
o Whether the roadway has had repaving, major tactical projects, or capital
reconstruction implemented in the past ten years, and/or whether
reconstruction or reinvestment in the roadway is planned in the near future.
• Cost
o How much is each intervention being considered going to cost in the specific
context in which it would be implemented
• Potential Improvement
o Comparing real operational data to potential data after improvements (e.g.,
transit signal priority infrastructure at intersection X is estimated to reduce
travel times on that route by 10%)
7.5.1.3 Steps towards Implementation
Once specific treatment(s) and location(s) have been identified, the city would then take formal
steps to pursue the project. This generally includes identifying funding sources, getting
approval from City Council, and releasing any associated RFPs/RFQs for the proposed work.
Implementation on transit traffic projects can take one year or more depending on the scale of
the project.
SLO may need to partner with other jurisdictions or agencies if the improvements involve
changes to shared infrastructure (such as moving a bus stop) or improvements in roadways
owned by other entities. Even in the event no other services are impacted, it will be critical for
SLO to maintain involvement of other regional stakeholders and communicate with the
community regarding improvements throughout the process.
7.5.2 Costs
TSP planning efforts can cost vary depending on the scope of the analysis and the number of
locations being considered. Once a plan is complete, prices for TSP infrastructure can range
from $8,000 to $35,000 per intersection, not including supporting central software.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
43
8 Summary
The SLO Transit Innovations Study investigated a broad variety of transit technologies and
mobility opportunities and presents SLO Transit with only the most applicable solutions that
may be of value to incorporate into short-range transportation planning efforts. The tailored list
of recommendations was evaluated and sorted based on relevance to SLO, impact to
ridership, timeframe, cost, and stakeholder feedback in order to determine each
recommendation’s overall priority. This provides clear and actionable next steps for the City
as it looks to improve service and add to future planning documents.
8.1 Recommendations
Table 9 summarizes the recommendations discussed in this plan. Each of the columns and
the values displayed are described in more detail below.
Relevance to SLO: While each of these recommendations is generally relevant (other
potential solutions have already been eliminated over the course of this project) this helps
evaluate how directly each solution maps to the established needs of the city.
Impact to Ridership: Some recommendations will help restore ridership or aim to improve
transit reliability so as to expand ridership. These are coded as high impact. Others are internal
planning efforts or operational improvements that will help SLO Transit but may not have as
direct an impact on ridership. These are coded as low impact.
Timeframe: Short range projects are recommended to be implemented within the next 6-12
months. Medium range items are projects that could be initiated between 12-24 months. Long-
term items, while still worth pursuing, have dependencies or other long range planning efforts
that make those efforts more realistic to be pursued 24+ months from the publishing of this
study. Note that this is distinct from ‘Timeline’ which only provides guidance on how long each
effort may take to complete once initiated.
Cost: In line with purchasing policies from the City of San Luis Obispo, recommendations may
be considered:
• Low cost: Tier 1 and Tier 2 purchases (<$40,000 for professional services or <$60,000
for capital projects)
• Medium cost: Tier 2 or 3 purchases ($40,000-$70,000 for professional services or
$60,000-$200,000 for capital projects)
• High cost: Tier 4 and Tier 5 purchases (<$70,000 for professional services or >$200,000
for capital projects)
Priority: This provides an overall priority level considering all other factors presented in this
table.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
44
Table 9: Recommendations for SLO Transit
# Recommendation Category Relevance
to SLO
Impact to
Ridership Timeframe Cost Priority
1 Enhanced Service on Fixed Routes Enhanced
Service High High Medium High HIGH
2 Pursue open loop payments through
Cal-ITP
User
Experience High High Medium Medium HIGH
3 Replace CAD/AVL System on Fixed-
Route Vehicles
Critical
Tech High Low Short High HIGH
4 Upgrade Automatic Passenger
Counters on Fixed-Route Vehicles
Critical
Tech High Low Short Medium HIGH
5 Enhance Real-Time Passenger
Information
User
Experience Medium High Short Medium HIGH
6 Replace and Improve Camera
Systems
Critical
Tech High Low Short Medium MEDIUM
7 Fare Changes for Students, Seniors,
Low-Income Riders
Fare
Programs High High Short Low MEDIUM
8 Explore Institutional Partnerships Fare
Programs Medium High Medium Low MEDIUM
9 Pursue Micro-Transit Mobility
Services
Enhanced
Service Medium High Long Medium MEDIUM
10 Expand Downtown Access Program Fare
Programs High Medium Short Low MEDIUM
11 Launch a Bikeshare Program Enhanced
Service Medium Low Short Low MEDIUM
12 Install Lighting, Shelters, and Bike
Parking at Applicable Bus Stops
Shelter and
Streets Medium Medium Medium Medium MEDIUM
13 Establish a Mobility-as-a-Service
Platform
User
Experience Medium Medium Long High LOW
14 Investigate and Establish Mobility
Hubs
Shelter and
Streets Medium Medium Medium High LOW
15 Launch a Carshare Program Enhanced
Service Medium Low Medium Medium LOW
16 Implement a Transit Signal Priority
Strategy
Enhanced
Service Low Low Medium High LOW
17 Add Bus Bulb-outs Downtown Shelter and
Streets Medium Low Long Medium LOW
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
45
8.2 Funding Sources
The following presents current and potential funding sources for SLO Transit’s consideration
in pursuing the recommendations outlined above.
The City receives its funding from fare revenues generated from its fixed-route service mode
as well as contributions from local, state, and federal grant subsidy programs. The funding
sources discussed in this section include both actual and projected revenue sources from the
latest adopted budget supporting operations and capital.
Note that partnerships with third-party providers (i.e., contracting microtransit on-demand
services to a company) can also limit upfront costs to agencies. Such strategies are not
outlined in detail here and would need to be explored further in coordination with any such
provider.
8.2.1 Local Transit Funding Sources
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.
Parking Fund: SLO Transit typically receives $20,000 annually from the parking fund;
opportunities to increase parking fees to subsidize transit improvements could be explored
further.
Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID): The TBID assessment is currently 2%,
which is comparable to other TBIDs in the state. To increase funding, opportunities to expand
the TBID assessment fee to 2.5% or 3% based on geographic zones could be explored.
Sponsored Routes or Services: SLO Transit does not currently collect revenue from local
businesses for sponsoring routes or services. While this strategy does come with some costs
and benefits, some agencies do use sponsorships to fund particular improvements or services
throughout the city.
Transportation Development Act (TDA): 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.
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
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
46
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. The measure
expenditure plan does not include direct funding to SLO Transit.
8.2.2 State Transit Funding Sources
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.
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.
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.
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 reducing 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
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
47
in the state budget. Annual funding allocations could aid in future procurements of low- or zero-
emission transit and support vehicles.
California Air Resources Board - Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP):
Includes implementation grants for transportation strategies that include Active Transportation,
Fixed-Route Transit, and Shared Mobility. These strategies are meant to encourage mode shift
from single-occupancy combustion vehicles, fill transportation gaps, and prioritize first/last mile
connections.
8.2.3 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 following table lists key FTA formula and competitive discretionary grant opportunities:
Table 10: FTA Grant Opportunities
FORMULA DISCRETIONARY
Section 5307: Urbanized Area Formula
Funding Program
Sections 5303, 5304, and 5305:
MPO/Statewide/Non-MPO Transportation
Planning
Section 5329: Public Transportation
Safety and Oversight
Section 5309: Capital Investment Grant
program (New Starts, Small Starts, Core
Capacity)
Section 5337: State of Good Repair (High
Intensity Fixed Guideway and High Intensity
Motorbus)
Section 5339: Bus and Bus Facilities and
No and Low Emission
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
48
Appendix A – Existing Systems
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
49
Table 11: Systems Inventory
TECHNOLOGY VENDOR DESCRIPTION END USERS MAJOR
FUNCTIONS AND
USERS
Onboard Systems
Mobile Data
Terminal
Bishop Peak The onboard central
processing unit that is
connected to and
manages data across all
the onboard systems,
automatic vehicle
location (AVL), audio
announcement system,
internal signs, headsigns,
and camera system (for
some vehicles).
Bus Driver Operator
communications,
performance
viewing
AVL Tablet Bishop Peak The onboard central
processing unit that is
connected to and
manages data across all
the onboard systems,
automatic vehicle
location (AVL), audio
announcement system,
internal signs, headsigns,
and farebox.
Bus Driver,
Maintenance
Communications,
data processing,
data storage, real-
time location and
schedule tracking,
headsign
management,
internal sign
management
Farebox Genfare Is a validating farebox
that accepts cash and
magnetic stripe paper
tickets.
Driver,
Finance,
Maintenance
Validating cash
and fare media
payments.
Collecting and
storing cash
transactions.
Onboard Camera
Systems
SEON Onboard security video
monitoring and
management system
equipment installed
across the vehicle fleet
except three (3) vehicles.
Each set of onboard
system equipment
consists of an HVR
integrated with multiple
interior and exterior
cameras.
Operations Security video
footage
Driver-facing
Camera Systems
DriveCam Onboard security video
equipment comprising of
gyroscope and
accelerometer used for
performance and incident
monitoring
Operations,
Reporting
Security video
footage
Central Systems
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
50
Fixed Route
Scheduling
System
Excel/Email Software that is used to
generate the fixed route
schedule, blocks, runs,
and driver rosters
Scheduling Timetables,
operator runs,
mileage for NTD
Dispatching Bishop Peak The central software
used for vehicle tracking
and real-time
dispatching, operations.
Dispatch,
Maintenance
Dispatch
management,
messaging,
location and
schedule
monitoring,
operations data
communications.
Operations
Reporting
Bishop Peak,
internally
developed
reports
A data warehouse and
reporting tool for
operational data captured
by the AVL system.
Planning,
Management
On-time
performance and
other reporting on
AVL data.
Maintenance and
Management
System
Hexagon The central software that
is used for managing
workflows for all work
orders related to
preventive maintenance
(PM) and repairs for
vehicle components,
purchase order
management for parts
and generating
maintenance reports.
Repairs conducted by
contractors are also
tracked in this system.
Maintenance Work order
management,
parts inventory
management,
parts fulfillment.
Fare System Genfare Data
System, Token
Transit
Central data
management and
processing system for all
Genfare fare system
equipment.
Finance,
Maintenance,
Planning
Revenue
collection,
Planning data
analysis
Video
Management
Software
SEON Central video
management software to
manage camera video
from HVRs and cameras
installed across the SLO
fleet. The software allows
staff to search, tag,
download video
wirelessly and playback
videos.
Maintenance,
Safety
System video
monitoring,
training, risk
management,
claims
management.
Garage Systems
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
51
Vehicle
Diagnostic
Software
Engine
Diagnostic
software
Used to assess vehicle
health and performance;
software can vary
depending on vehicle
model and is often
different depending on
manufacturer.
Maintenance,
Safety
Vehicle health,
maintenance and
monitoring
Farebox Probing Genfare Farebox data probe
system to export fare
data from fareboxes into
central fare data system
Finance,
Maintenance
Farebox data
collection and
management
system.
EV Charging
Infrastructure
ChargePoint Chargers, dispensers,
and related equipment
that is used to power
electric vehicles.
Currently SLO has a
mobile charging set-up,
but permanent charging
infrastructure is planned
for the yard.
Operations,
maintenance,
planning
Charging and fuel
monitoring,
operations
Customer Systems
Real-time
Information
SLO Transit
app
The real-time information
dissemination software
used to provide
passengers information
about the vehicle
locations and arrival
predictions.
Customers,
Community
Relations
Customer
information
dissemination.
Fare Payment Token Transit
App
Mobile application that
lets customers buy and
activate transit tickets
from their phone
Finance,
Maintenance,
Planning
Revenue
collection,
Planning data
analysis
Third-Party
Applications
Transit App,
Moovit App,
Twitter
A variety of platforms that
are used to provide
customers information
about SLO service on
customers preferred
platform.
Community
Relations
Customer
information
dissemination and
detour
management.
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
52
Appendix B – Needs Assessment
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
53
Table 12: SLO Transit Needs
NO. NEEDS SUPPLMENTARY INFORMATION CATEGORY PRIORITY
1 Eliminate glitching/freezing of CAD system Dispatchers currently report system freezing periodically
and are sometimes unable to tell where the buses are
through the CAD/AVL system.
Dispatch High
2 Annunciators in the buses should work
100% of the time
Right now, annunciators work around 70% of the time.
Sometimes drivers must announce stops.
Customer
Service,
Operations
High
3 Transit app should work across all device
types
Sometimes app works well on iPhones but not on
Android.
Customer
service
High
4 Electronic incident reporting features that
allow for distribution, electronic filing, and
ability to run reports in more automated
fashion.
Incident reports are currently done on paper and
dispatch scans paper reports and sends them out to all
relevant departments. This can cause delays and
increases manual burden on staff.
Administration High
5 Replace technology systems that have
reached the end of their useful life
SEON camera system aboard certain buses have
reached the end of its useful life and should be
replaced.
Operations High
6 A more reliable method of counting
passengers
The existing APC system is run through the AVL
system. It was installed on most of the buses, but they
have not worked as intended since installation. City
would like this replaced with an NTD-compliant system.
Administration High
7 Improved CAD/AVL reporting capabilities A system that can perform runtime reports or more
reliable passenger counts would alleviate manual
reporting requirements and improve processes.
Administration,
Reporting
High
8 Improved fare payment interface and open-
loop contactless payments
Currently, only a few residents know about Token
Transit app that they can use to pay fares on SLO
Transit buses. It does not allow for the use of credit
cards or contactless payment on buses directly.
Customer
Service
High
9 A Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) application
that integrates transit, carshare, parking, EV
charging, and bikeshare
The city's Active Transportation Plan includes a goal of
better integrating transit, carshare, and bikeshare.
Active
Transportation
High
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
54
10 Initiate or expand bike and car share
services
City staff would like to initiate docked bikeshare and
expand the carshare program (ZipCar) currently at
CalPoly.
Active
Transportation
High
11 A customer-facing transit app that shows
real-time bus location and predicted arrival
times more accurately
The current transit application shows bus location but is
not always reliable. The predicted bus arrival times does
not always consider on-route delays or detours. The City
would like to explore other technologies that do allow for
rerouting and reflect accurate arrival times.
Customer
Service
High
12 A user-friendly hotline for supporting
common bus location-based inquiries.
SLO gets calls from customers about bus arrival times
when there are delays or detours that are not reflected
in the app. Current operations would benefit from some
real-time information to be available to customers over
the phone without manual intervention. City would like to
explore IVR in multiple contexts for providing information
to customers.
Customer
Service
High
13 A reliable, user friendly interface for
reporting
Currently MS Access is used to prepare reports for the
city, and the interface is outdated. City would like to use
staff time as efficiently as possible.
Administration High
14 Integrated camera system on buses that
provides the same capabilities fleet-wide
Currently, buses have two different systems- most have
older SEON systems, while 3 buses have camera
systems that interface with CAD/AVL software. The two
different systems result in procedural inconsistencies for
data backup and incident reporting. Upgrading to a
single camera system that allows for wireless transfer of
data would be beneficial.
Operations Medium
15 An integrated system where drivers can log-
in fewer times
Currently, every time before starting a shift, drivers must
log-in to three different systems: Bishop Peak, NFC, and
the Genfare platform.
Operations Medium
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
55
16 Additional camera angles and seamless file
sharing for onboard video
Checking video footage after an incident is primarily
done through DriveCam because it is more user-
friendly. However, DriveCam only captures one angle
and is not useful for incidents that occur on the side of
the bus. These incidents require using a thumb drive to
manually extract the footage from the onboard camera
systems hard drive.
Administration Medium
17 Integrated software for 3 different models of
EV buses
SLO Transit may soon have Battery Electric Buses from
3 different vendors (moving forward, it will be a single
manufacturer)- New Flyer, Proterra, and Gillig. While the
chargers will be universal, the diagnostic software will
be proprietary for each vendor. This could lead to using
three different software products for vehicle diagnostics.
Maintenance Medium
18 Bike locker locations and reservation
capability
Riders do not currently have the ability to easily reserve
bike locker spaces and track their availability.
Active
Transportation
Medium
19 Working detour communication features on
transit application
This feature on the transit app has not been working as
intended.
Customer
Service
Medium
20 Address service reliability routes 2a and 3 Long wait times on these routes is partially a product of
construction work but impacts riders' ability to get where
they need to go on time.
Service
Planning
Medium
21 Bus stops should incorporate real-time ETA
signage at more stops and ETAs should be
accurate
Real-time posts are not always accurate and are only
located at a few select stops. Other stops could benefit
from upgraded infrastructure and accurate prediction
data.
Bus stops Medium
22 Dashboard for easy access to operational
statistics
City staff relies on First Transit for reporting information
such as revenue, miles, and vehicle hours. An
accessible dashboard to check operational data from
the city side would assist with NTD reporting and
verification.
Administration,
Reporting
Medium
ARCADIS IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT
SLO TRANSIT INNOVATION STUDY
Prepared for SLO Transit
56
23 Easier process for acquiring free transit
passes and potential integration with a
MaaS application for doing this
Downtown employees in San Luis Obispo are permitted
to receive free transit passes, but passes require going
to a specific office location and employees must re-
enroll every month
Fareless/Comm
uter Programs
Medium
24 Digital wayfinding capabilities Bike and pedestrian wayfinding are inadequate in some
areas. A digital wayfinding system could be an
affordable solution in targeted areas.
Active
Transportation
Low
25 A way of conveying bike parking locations
and availability
There is currently no system for residents to know the
locations and availability of bike parking spaces.
Active
Transportation
Low
26 E-bike charging infrastructure As e-bikes become more prevalent, there may more
demand for public bike charging stations.
Active
Transportation
Low
27 More automated process for schedule
changes
Schedule changes from the City to the operator are
currently communicated via email. While the process
works fine, there is interest in exploring technologies
that may be available to ease schedule change burden
or lessen the number of steps involved.
Service
Planning
Low
28 City access to maintenance data Currently, First Transit is responsible for reporting all
maintenance data to SLO Transit; this process would be
simplified and data could be more easily verified if city
staff had a login to review data or information from
Hexagon were shared directly into SLO Transit systems,
or if the operator were required to use SLO City systems
for data sharing.
Administration,
Reporting
Low