HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8a. Study Session - SLO Transit Short-Range Transit Plan Update Item 8a
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5201
For Agenda of: 7/16/2024
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 120 Minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Alex Fuchs, Mobility Services Business Manager
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: SLO TRANSIT SHORT-RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
UPDATE STUDY SESSION
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the progress of SLO Transit’s Short-Range Transit Plan
update, including service alternatives analysis, provide direction regarding which service
alternatives to incorporate into the plan update, and provide direction to staff to return in
fall 2024 with a draft plan for Council’s review.
POLICY CONTEXT
Federal statutes require that the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
develop and periodically update a long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and a
Transportation Improvement Plan. The Transportation Improvement Plan is referred to in
the San Luis Obispo region as the Federal Transportation Improvement Plan (FTIP). The
FTIP implements the RTP through the programming of federal funds to transportation
projects identified in the RTP. SLOCOG requires each transit agency receiving federal
funding through the FTIP to prepare and adopt a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) every
five years.
Policy 3.1.2 (City Bus Service) of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element states that
the City will improve and expand bus service to make the system more convenient and
accessible for everyone. The policy also states that the City will attempt to maintain and
improve all transit standards identified in the City’s SRTP. Program 3.2.1 (Transit Plans)
of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element states that the City will continue to
implement the SRTP and coordinate with SLOCOG on implementing the RTP. Program
3.2.3 (Commuter Bus Service) of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element states that
the City will work with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to maintain
and expand commuter bus service to and from the City of San Luis Obispo during pea k
commute periods consistent with the SRTP and the RTP.
Page 355 of 401
Item 8a
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Every five years, the City is required to complete an update to its Short-Range Transit
Plan (SRTP). The SRTP serves as SLO Transit’s business plan for the five -year period
and provides operating and capital project recommendations to help achieve the City’s
transportation goals. The City and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
kicked off a joint SRTP update in September 2023. The update is roughly at the halfway
mark with the completion of the fourth of eight working papers. Working Paper 4 analyzes
service alternatives to better meet current and future community needs. Staff is
requesting Council review the service alternatives and provide direction as to which
should be incorporated in the draft SRTP.
DISCUSSION
Background
The previous Short-Range Transit Plan (2016 SRTP) was adopted in September 2016
and provided capital and operational recommendations for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2017
through 2021. The 2016 SRTP was the first joint SLO Transit and RTA plan update work
effort. Multiple recommendations from the 2016 SRTP were implemented by the City,
including implementation of the bi-directional fixed route system, creation of the Laguna
Tripper service, later service on weekdays during the academic year, and an increase in
pass and fare rates. The current SRTP update was scheduled to begin in 2020 but was
delayed due to the COVID pandemic and staff turnover in the City’s Transit program.
In June 2023, RTA released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a joint SRTP update for
RTA and SLO Transit. RTA received one bid response from LSC Transportation
Consultants, Inc. (LSC)1. LSC has extensive experience developing transit plans across
the western United States and is the same firm that completed the 2016 SRTP. In
September 2023, RTA executed an agreement with LSC for the joint SRTP update. LSC’s
approach to the work is projected to take 15 months and includes development of eight
Working Papers that will be compiled into a draft plan. The W orking Papers and their
contents are outlined below.
Working Paper 1 – Overview of Transit Services
Working Paper 2 – Goals, Objectives, and Standards
Working Paper 3 – Service and System Evaluation
Working Paper 4 – Service Alternatives Analysis
Working Paper 5 – Operating Budget and Financial Projections
Working Paper 6 – Marketing Plans and Goals
Working Paper 7 – Capital Improvement Plans
Working Paper 8 – Joint Coordination between SLO Transit and RTA Analysis
1 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Joint SRTP Proposal
Page 356 of 401
Item 8a
So far, LSC has produced Working Papers 1, 2, 3, and 4 and is on track to provide a full
draft plan for staff’s review in September 2024. Due to the size of the documents, links to
Working Papers 12, 23, and 34 are provided in the footnotes of this report. Working Paper
4 – Service Alternatives Analysis – is included as Attachment A to this report. Staff
anticipates returning to Council with a draft plan in November 2024 and a final plan for
adoption in January 2025. The adopted plan’s recommendations will be incorporated into
the City’s 2025-27 Financial Plan.
Summary of Working Paper 1 – Overview of Transit Services
Working Paper 1 provides an overview of the existing services, fare structure, and capital
assets (fleet and facilities) for SLO Transit and for RTA. LSC also provides an overview
of other public transit services in the region , including brief discussions of the various
public transportation, nonprofit transportation, and private for -profit transportation
providers. In Appendix A of the Working Paper, LSC summarizes regional, local, and
agency specific plans and studies completed since the 2016 SRTP or currently underway.
Summary of Working Paper 2 – Goals, Objectives, and Standards
An important element in the success of any organization is a clear and concise set of
goals and objectives, as well as the performance measures and standards needed to
attain them. Working Paper 2 compares SLO Transit’s FY 2022-23 performance against
existing performance standards, analyzes peer transit agencies to inform development of
revised performance standard recommendations, and then presents recommendations
for SLO Transit’s goals, objectives, and standards.
In the past two SRTPs, SLO Transit’s performance measures were tied directly to the
performance of peer agencies. Given the City’s mode split objective of 7 percent of trips
by transit by 2030 and 12 percent of trips by transit by 2035, Working Paper 2
recommends no longer linking SLO Transit’s performance standards to peer transit
agencies. Instead, in this SRTP, peer agency’s performance will be used as a gauge to
understand whether SLO Transit is performing within industry norms. Peer agencies were
selected using three main criteria: university campus enrollment, city population, and
number of buses in maximum fixed route service. Based on these criteria, Bloomington -
Normal, IL; Pocatello, ID; Bowling Green, KY; Flagstaff, AZ; St. Cloud MN; and Pueblo,
CO were selected as peer agencies.
Working Paper 2 recommends establishing a minimum standard and a higher, target
maximum standard for the following key performance measures: productivity (passengers
per vehicle revenue hour), cost-effectiveness (operating cost per passenger trip), and
cost-efficiency (operating cost per vehicle revenue hour). These target standards are
based on FY 2015-16 when ridership was at its highest point at just ove r 1.2 million
boardings.
2 Working Paper 1 – Overview of Transit Services
3 Working Paper 2 – Goals, Objectives, and Standards
4 Working Paper 3 – Service and System Evaluation
Page 357 of 401
Item 8a
A significant increase in ridership is needed to achieve the City’s mode split objectives
while maintaining the required Farebox Recovery Ratio (FFR) of 20 percent. Working
Paper 2 recommends minimum and target standards for key measurements to track
progress toward meeting the mode split objectives while also meeting SLO Transit’s FFR
requirement. Below are the recommended measures for productivity, cost-effectiveness,
and cost-efficiency standards.
Passengers per Vehicle Revenue Hour – a minimum of 11.5 based on the peer
average and a target standard of 36 based on ridership in FY 2015-16.
Operating Cost per Passenger Trip – set a maximum of $11.23 based on the
peer average and a target standard of $3.85 based on current system costs and
ridership in FY 2015-16.
Operating Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour – set a maximum of $145 based on
FY 2022-23 actuals and a target standard of $137.04 based on vehicle revenue
hours and miles provided in FY 2015-16.
Productivity for transit systems is measured by the number of passengers transported per
vehicle revenue hour. Based on FY 2015 -16 ridership, LSC recommends SLO Transit
maintain a minimum of 11.5 passengers per revenue hour with a target of 36 passengers
per revenue hour. Cost-effectiveness is measured by dividing total operating costs by the
total number of passengers trips taken annually. For SLO Transit, LSC recommends a
maximum of $11.23 per passenger with a target of $3.85 per passenger. Cost -efficiency
is measured by dividing total operating costs by the total number of hours when services
are provided. LSC recommends a maximum of $145 per hour with a target of $137.04
per hour. These three performance measurements are useful to monitoring the impacts
of service changes and whether the service changes are helping SLO Transit to increase
ridership and meet the City’s mode split objectives more effectively and efficiently.
Working Paper 2 includes other recommended changes to SLO Transit’s performance
standards based on the recently completed Transit Innovation Study. These
recommended changes include increasing service frequency from 30 minutes at peak
and 60 minutes at off-peak to 15 minutes at peak and 30 minutes at off -peak, expand fare
and pass options, provide lighting at 100 percent of bus stops, and expand span of
service5 hours on weekends. A full list of recommended performance standards can be
found in Table 4 of Working Paper 2.
Summary of Working Paper 3 – Service and System Evaluation
Working Paper 3 is a key document in the preparation of the SRTP update as it identifies
and analyzes existing and future public needs for transit services. The document covers
demographic and economic factors related to transit demand, evaluates ten years of SLO
Transit’s operations and performance data, and the appendices present data from the
onboard survey, community survey, and stakeholder workshop feedback.
5 Span of Service means the number of hours during a day that transit service is provided.
Page 358 of 401
Item 8a
Transit Needs Index Assessment
LSC performed a Transit Needs Index (TNI) assessment as part of the demographic and
economic data analysis. A TNI shows which areas have the greatest relative need for
transit services based on the concentration of transit-dependent residents. The transit-
dependent individuals are typically considered to comprise youths, senior adults, persons
with a disability, low-income persons, and persons who live in zero -vehicle households.
All these areas are provided with some level of services by SLO Transit.
Census block groups encompassing the Downtown area and south-central San Luis
Obispo have the overall highest TNI ranks, scoring either high or very high for most of the
demographic categories considered. It makes sense that the Downtown area ranks very
high on the TNI since most of the residential areas lack dedicated parking and/or are
considered low-income housing like the Wineman Apartments building. Block groups with
moderate transit need, based on the TNI, are found in northeastern, eastern, and
southeastern San Luis Obispo, along S. Higuera Street, Foothill Boulevard, and Highland
Drive, as well as near the southern portion of the Cal Poly campus. Figure 1 shows the
TNI ranks for the census block groups that make up the City.
Page 359 of 401
Item 8a
Figure 1 - City of San Luis Obispo Transit Needs Index Map
Page 360 of 401
Item 8a
Ten-Year Trends Analysis
LSC’s ten-year trend analysis of SLO Transit’s operations reveals the significant impact
the COVID pandemic and the nationwide driver shortage that followed had on ridership
and service levels. Ridership peaked in FY 2015-16 with more than 1.2 million boardings
then proceeded to decline slightly until FY 2018 -19 with a significant decline in FY 2019-
20 and FY 2020-21 due to the pandemic. Ridership recovered quickly in FY 2021-22 and
FY 2022-23 but is still less than half when compared to FY 2015 -16 data as shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 2 - SLO Transit Annual Ridership (FY2013 - FY 2024)
LSC’s trend analysis also shows that operating costs have increased 31 percent over the
past ten years, which is similar to increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the
same period. This indicates that SLO Transit’s operating costs have not increased more
than inflation. Local revenue, which includes cash fares and funding from the Cal Poly
Transit Service Agreement, has only increased by 14 percent over the past ten years.
Service miles and service hours decreased by 14 percent and 6 percent, respectively,
over the ten-year period. The reduction in miles and hours is due to service reductions
made during the pandemic and the slow service restoration that followed due to driver
shortages. As of the writing of this report, SLO Transit still has several services
suspended including the San Luis Tripper, Highland Tripper, and Route 6 Express.
FY 2022-23 Operations and Performance
In FY 2022-23, Route 4A had the greatest ridership followed by Routes 3A, 2A, and 4B
which is relatively consistent with prior years’ ridership trends . Higher ridership tends to
be observed on the A routes versus B routes because the A routes operate more days of
the week and for longer hours. Services oriented toward Cal Poly and K-12 students
(Routes 3 and 4 and the Laguna Tripper) were the most productive and cost-efficient
when comparing the proposed performance standards discussed in Working Paper 2.
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
Page 361 of 401
Item 8a
On-time performance was also recorded as part of the October 2023 onboard surveying
efforts. Based on the data collected and presented in Figure 3 in this report, Routes 1A,
4A, 4B, and the Laguna Tripper had the best on -time performance as they were on-time
for 80 percent or more of the timepoint stops. Route 2A and the Old SLO Trolley had the
largest proportions of timepoints for which the bus left late. Routes 2A, 3A, and 3B had
the largest proportions of timepoints for which the bus left more than 15 minutes late. The
data suggests that on-time performance is a challenge for SLO Transit, especially on
Routes 2 and 3. On-time performance is an important aspect of service quality and
reliability and the SRTP update will consider service modifications to improve on-time
performance.
Figure 3 - On-Time Performance by Route
Since the peak of the pandemic in FY 2020-21, SLO Transit systemwide performance
has slowly improved with the return of both local and Cal Poly ridership. However, it is
likely that significant service modifications will be needed to increase SLO Transit
ridership to the levels necessary to achieve the City of San Luis Obispo’s adopted transit
mode split objectives. LSC’s performance analysis also reveals service inefficiencies that
should be addressed to increase reliability and the community’s confidence in transit as
a viable transportation option. Service alternatives meant to address the City’s mode split
objective and improve service performance based on the data collected by LSC were
analyzed and compiled into Working Paper 4.
Summary of Working Paper 4 – Service Alternatives Analysis
Preparation of service alternatives is one of the major components of any SRTP. The
data and feedback documented in the first three working papers is used to develop
service alternatives that will best address the current and future needs of the communit y.
Many of the service alternatives analyzed in Working Paper are focused on increasing
8
1
6
7
6
4
3
9
12
90
38
90
82
46
46
47
32
65
87
10
35
6
11
21
13
28
10
21
1
12
1
2
4
1
9
15
8
1
0
21
34
11
40
5
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Laguna Tripper
Old SLO Trolley
Route 4B
Route 4A
Route 3B
Route 3A
Route 2B
Route 2A
Route 1B
Route 1A
Early On-Time 6-10 Min. Late 11-15 Min. Late >15 Min. Late
Page 362 of 401
Item 8a
ridership to help achieve the City’s transit mode split objective. The impacts of the
alternatives are presented separately in this working paper, but the combined impa cts will
be included in forthcoming Working Paper 5 – Operating Budget and Financial Projections
and Working Paper 7 – Capital Improvement Plans.
The service alternatives are organized by the type of change proposed into four
categories: (1) changes to service frequency, (2) changes to service hours, (3)
Microtransit service, and (4) routing and service reestablishment alternatives. The various
alternatives are then compared using the new performance standards recommended in
Working Paper 2. Ridership and operating costs impacts are estimated based on FY
2022-23 actuals and FY 2023-24 projected figures.
Service Frequency Alternatives
The Transit Innovations Study recommended increasing service frequency to improve
service quality and increase ridership. More frequent service was one of the most
requested improvements during the onboard passenger survey (42 percent of
respondents). The options discussed demonstrate the wide range of potential impacts
that can result from increasing service frequency to differing extents. Table 1 summarizes
the service frequency alternatives and potential impacts.
Service frequency is typically measured by the number of buses per hour or by time
between buses on a particular route. This measurement is often referred to as headways6.
For example, SLO Transit’s 1A Route has one bus running per hour, so this route is
considered to have hourly headways. Doubling service frequency on Route 1A would
increase the number of buses running per hour and reduce the time between buses to
30-minute headways. Several of the service alternatives scenarios analyzed include
doubling frequency on all routes or on select routes including scenarios where frequency
is double for the entire service day or for portions of the service day.
6 Headway means the average interval of time between vehicles moving in the same direction on the
same route
Page 363 of 401
Item 8a
Table 1 - Service Frequency Alternatives
Status
Quo7 Changes in Annual Service
Service Alternative Ridership Ridership Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Marginal
Operating
Cost
Cash
Fares
Add’l
Buses
Needed
Increase Route 4 Service Frequency During Academic Year
Route 4A
(8:00 am to 10:00 am) 152,800 4,200 300 2,300 $ 20,200 $ 300 1
Route 4B
(3:00 pm to 5:00 pm) 70,900 3,900 300 2,100 $ 19,700 $ 300 1
Double Service Frequency on Routes 1, 2, 3, and 4 (A & B)
Full Service Day8, Year-
Round 574,1009 208,300 33,500 347,000 $ 2,455,000 $ 83,500 8
8:00 am to 6:00 pm,
Weekdays, Year-Round 574,100 119,700 19,600 234,200 $ 1,505,800 $ 48,000 8
Full Service Day,
Weekdays, Academic Year 574,100 153,600 20,900 231,700 $ 1,565,500 $ 61,600 8
Double Service Frequency on Routes 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A
Full Service Day,
Weekdays, Academic Year 383,700 89,600 11,300 133,800 $ 865,400 $ 35,900 4
Double Service Frequency on Routes 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Full Service Day,
Weekdays, Academic Year 384,100 101,200 11,600 136,100 $ 885,600 $ 40,600 4
Route 4 is the most popular service and provides direct connection between Cal Poly, the
Foothill Blvd. area, and the downtown. Increased service frequency on Route 4 would
primarily benefit Cal Poly students, faculty, staff, and general riders that access the
campus. SLO Transit would likely see a marginal increase in cash fares since Cal Poly
riders are covered under a Transit Service Agreement (TSA) with Cal Poly. The current
TSA term is from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027, with an annual payment of
$750,000 to the City for services provided.
The TSA allows for the City or for Cal Poly to request reopening the agreement if (1) Cal
Poly ridership increases or decreases by 10% or more in a year or (2) if the City increases
the fare box rate of 25% over the duration of the agreement. Changes to Cal Poly ridership
resulting from any service alternatives will be monitored to see if this triggers the ability
to reopen the agreement for further negotiations.
LSC analyzed five different scenarios in which service frequency is doubled across select
or all fixed routes at different periods throughout the year. Doubling the frequency would
result in service every 25 to 30 minutes and would directly address the top
recommendation of the Transit Innovation Study. However, doubling service as analyzed
under all five scenarios would also require significant operating and capital investments.
Operating costs would increase between $865,400 and $2.45 million annually and capital
costs would require purchase of four to eight additional buses.
7 Based on FY 2023-24 actual ridership through Mach 31, 2024 projected through the end of the year
8 Full Service Day means the total number of hours a day that transit service is provided.
9 System-Wide
Page 364 of 401
Item 8a
Span of Service Alternatives
The next set of alternatives focus on the hours that transit services operate also referred
to as “span of service.” Passengers requested multiple changes to the span of service
during the onboard passenger survey; the most requested service improvements were
later evening service (54 percent of respondents), more frequent service (42 percent),
additional Saturday service (39 percent), and additional Sunday service (32 percent).
Table 2 summarizes the span of service alternatives and potential impacts.
Table 2 - Span of Service Alternatives
Status
Quo Changes in Annual Service
Service Alternative Ridership Ridership Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Marginal
Operating
Cost
Cash
Fares
Add’l
Buses
Needed
Extend Weekday Evening Service on A Routes
Extend Service to 12:00 am,
Academic Year 383,700 5,100 1,000 10,900 $ 74,500 $ 2,000 0
Extend Service to 10:00 pm,
Non-Academic Year 383,700 2,200 700 7,000 $ 50,700 $ 900 0
Expand Service on B Routes
Operate B Routes on
Weekends, 7:45 am to 8:00 pm 178,700 39,600 3,200 46,100 $ 263,100 $ 15,900 0
Operate 3B and 4B on
Weekends 178,700 29,400 1,600 25,300 $ 136,700 $ 11,800 0
Extend Routes 1B and 2B until
10:00 pm, Weekdays,
Academic Year
178,700 4,000 1,400 14,500 $ 102,600 $ 1,600 0
Provide Academic Year Service Levels Year-Round
574,100 16,300 2,300 26,400 $ 174,300 $ 6,500 0
To provide residents with a later-night transit option, two alternatives for extending service
on Routes 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A were considered. Currently, the last departures on
weekdays during the academic year on the A Routes occur at 9:15 PM (Routes 1A and
2A), 10:15 PM (Route 3A) and 10:30 (Route 4A). Based on late evening ridership on
transit services at other California universities, this additional service is estimated to
increase ridership by 5,100 boardings per year. This alternative would not require an
additional bus to operate, but it would increase annual operating cost by $80,200.
During the non-academic year, the last runs start at 7:15 PM on Routes 1A, 2A, and 3A
and 7:30 PM on Route 4A. Extending service until 10:00 PM would require operating two
additional runs on Routes 1, 2, and 3, and three additional runs on Route 4. Based on
ridership from comparative agencies during academic and non -academic periods, these
additional runs would generate 2,200 passenger-trips per year, increase annual operating
costs increased by $50,700, and would result in a minimal increase in cash fare revenue.
No additional buses would be required.
Page 365 of 401
Item 8a
Three route B service expansion scenarios were analyzed including operation of all B
routes on the weekends, operation of only Routes 3B and 4B on the weekends, and
extending Routes 1B and 2B on weekdays. Both scenarios analyzing operation of the B
routes on weekends is estimated to result in significant increases to ridership but also to
service miles and to operating costs. Extension of Routes 1B and 2B on weekdays is
estimated to slightly increase ridership but would have a significant impact on operating
costs. None of the three scenarios require additional buses since the existing fleet is
sufficient to provide the service.
Lastly, Cal Poly plans to transition to a semester system beginning Fall 2026 which means
class sessions would begin earlier and end later than under the current quarter system.
There may also be more opportunities for students to attend summer classes through a
semester system. LSC analyzed the potential impacts of providing academic service
levels year-round. This scenario would increase annual vehicle-hours and annual vehicle-
miles but also increase ridership and cash fares. Annual operating costs would be
increased by $174,300 however no additional buses would be required. This option also
has the benefit of providing more consistent year-round driver schedules, which has the
potential to increase driver retention.
As stated above, any service alternatives that result in an increase to Cal Poly ridership
would allow the City to request a reopening of the TSA to further negotiations. Staff
already tracks Cal Poly ridership and any implemented service changes would be easy
to monitor.
Microtransit Service Alternatives
Microtransit utilizes the app-based technology developed for transportation network
companies like Uber and Lyft to provide real-time, on-demand transit service. In recent
years, many public transit agencies have begun using Microtransit to provide transit
coverage over areas not served efficiently by fixed routes. Microtransit has also been
found to be effective in areas with high demand for short trips. Most Microtransit
passengers request rides and pay fares through an app or over the phone. Table 3
summarizes the Microtransit service alternatives and potential impacts.
Page 366 of 401
Item 8a
Table 3 - Microtransit Service Alternatives
Status
Quo Changes in Annual Service
Service Alternative Ridership Ridership Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Marginal
Operating
Cost
Cash
Fares
Add’l
Buses
Needed
Evening Microtransit, Southeast SLO
7:00 pm to 10:00 pm,
weekdays, Year-Round 55,900 100 500 8,800 $ 33,600 $ 200 2
Late Night Microtransit, Citywide
10:00 pm to 12:00am,
Weekdays, Academic Year 574,100 4,700 1,400 17,500 $ 122,800 $ 11,100 3
10:00 pm to 12:00am, 7
Days/Week, Academic Year 574,100 7,100 1,700 21,625 $ 160,600 $ 11,100 3
As part of this alternative, replacing Route 1A with Microtransit service between the hours
of 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM on a year-round basis was reviewed. Routes 1A and 1B serve
residences in southeast San Luis Obispo as well as the San Luis Airport. Figure 4
presents an example Microtransit service in the southeast service area of the City. In
order to serve the level of transit demand currently seen on Route 1A during the evening
hours, two vehicles would be needed to provide service.
This would cost an additional $33,600 annually in operating costs (including the costs of
the annual technology license). As SLO Transit does not currently have small vehicles in
their fleet, two vans would also need to be procured to operate this service. There would
be a small increase in ridership over the existing Route 1A evening ridership by around
100 trips per year but, as development progresses along Tank Farm Rd., Microtransit
service area could be expanded. However, as demand for service increases , another
vehicle would be required, which would further increase costs.
Page 367 of 401
Item 8a
Figure 4 - Microtransit in Southeast Service Area
Microtransit could be provided to the entire city as a “Late Night” service. SLO Transit
services are not available past 11:00 PM and only Routes 3 and 4 operate this late during
the academic year. As part of this alternative, Microtransit would be available between
10:00 PM and midnight during the academic year. This alternative assumes that three
vans would be used for an annua l operating cost between $122,800 and $160,600
annually depending on the days of service . Ridership was estimated by reviewing
ridership by hour on other Microtransit services and would result in modest increases.
If implemented, staff recommends that Microtransit be provided as a one-to-two-year pilot
program once the necessary vehicles and management software is obtained. A pilot
program could be implemented by leasing vehicles and associated software from a transit
service provider so that the City does not have to buy vehicles. The current agreement
with Transdev, the City’s transit operations and maintenance services provider, expires
on June 30, 2025 and allows for a one -year extension through June 30, 2026. An option
for a Microtransit pilot program can be included in the next Request for Proposals for
transit operations and maintenance services.
Page 368 of 401
Item 8a
Route Realignment and Service Reestablishment Alternatives
LSC analyzed routing realignments based on the performance data and survey feedback
collected and analyzed as part of Working Paper 3. LSC also analyzed impacts of
reestablishing tripper and express services provided prior to the onset of the pandemic.
SLO Transit plans to reestablish these services and this analysis provides insight into
potential revenue, costs, and ridership changes associated with the reestablishment.
Table 4 summarizes the route realignment and service reinstatement alternatives and
potential impacts.
Table 4 – Route Realignment and Service Reinstatement Alternatives
Status
Quo Changes in Annual Service
Service Alternative Ridership Ridership Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Marginal
Operating
Cost
Cash
Fares
Add’l
Buses
Needed
Revise Route 1 and 3 in Downtown Area
236,300 17,700 0 -2,500 -$ 5,600 $ 9,600 0
Reinstate Route 6 Express
0 2,200 100 1,000 $ 7,200 $ 900 1
Reinstate SLO Tripper
0 7,100 280 1,430 $ 17,200 $ 2,800 1
Reinstate Highland Tripper
0 6,600 230 2,430 $ 17,000 $ 2,600 1
Working Paper 3 demonstrated that on-time performance is a major issue for most of SLO
Transit’s routes. LSC considered several routing realignments to Routes 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B,
3A, and 3B to improve on-time performance. LSC determined the best scenario to
improve on-time performance would be to realign Routes 3A and 3B onto US 101
between the Downtown Transit Center and the Madonna Street interchange and shift
Routes 1A and 1B onto the exiting Routes 3A/3B routes between Broad Street/High
Street and the Downtown Transit Center. Figure 5 below shows the proposed
realignments of Routes 1 and 3 and their existing routes.
Service would be fully eliminated from a total of four existing stops and reduce service
between the downtown Transit Center and central downtown San Luis Obispo by
rerouting Route 1 out of the area. However, as the current Route 1 schedule is very close
to the Route 2 schedule in both directions, this would not significantly reduce the
convenience of transit service. This option would also reduce the travel times between
southwest San Luis Obispo and the Downtown Transit Center.
Improving the dependability of Route 3 would also improve the connections to other
routes at the Transit Center. Overall, the proposed realignment would increase ridership,
decrease operating costs, and generate additional cash fare revenue. No additional
buses would be required.
Page 369 of 401
Item 8a
Figure 5 - Routes 1 and 3 Realignment
Reinstatement of Route 6 Express would provide direct connection between Cal Poly and
downtown on Famer’s Market nights. Reinstatement of the tripper services would provide
direct service to the high school via the SLO Tripper and service between Cal Poly and
the Foothill Blvd neighborhood. The three services would result in modest increases to
ridership and to operating costs. Operating costs for reinstatement of these services is
already included in the Transit Fund’s annual operating budget.
Service Alternatives Preliminary LSC and Staff Recommendations
An analysis using the proposed performance standards identified in Working Paper 2
show that the following service alternatives have the greatest potential to enhance
services while meeting both the passengers per vehicle revenue hour and operating cost
per passenger trip standards. Based on their analysis, LSC recommends including the
following alternatives in the development of the draft plan.
Page 370 of 401
Item 8a
LSC Recommended Alternatives:
1. Realign Routes 1 and 3 in downtown San Luis Obispo;
2. Provide B route service on weekend days year-round;
3. Increase Route 4A service frequency on weekday mornings in the academic year;
4. Increase Route 4B service frequency on weekday afternoons in the academic year; and
5. Reinstate Route 6 Express, SLO Tripper, and Highland Tripper services.
Staff concurs with LSC Recommendation #1 to realign Routes 1 and 3 in downtown San
Luis Obispo as this change is believed to help address observed on-time performance
issues. On time performance for SLO Transit is important to instill a sense of trust and
reliability for users and increase confidence that SLO Transit customers can depend on the
services that SLO Transit provides. This recommendation is estimated to have a minor
savings in operating costs of $5,600 a year and will not require any additional transit
vehicles.
Staff concurs with LSC Recommendation #2 to provide B route service on weekend days
year-round as this was a highly requested in SLOCOG’s Transit Needs Assessment as well
as through the outreach conducted as part of the SRTP update. There is concern that
adding weekend services could not increase ridership for SLO Transit but may only spread
out current ridership across more trips. Staff is recommending that if this service
augmentation is supported by Council that Council consider this to be phased in as a last
order of service augmentation. This recommendation is estimated to increase annual
operating cost by $263,100 and will not require any additional transit vehicles.
Staff concurs with LSC Recommendation #3 to increase Route 4A service frequency on
weekday mornings in the academic year and LSC Recommendation #4 to increase Route
4B service frequency on weekday afternoons in the academic year as these routes are the
best performing and the highest demand routes for SLO Transit service. This
recommendation is estimated to increase annual operating cost by $39,900 and requires
one additional transit vehicle.
Staff concurs with LSC Recommendation #5 to reinstate Route 6 Express, SLO Tripper, and
Highland Tripper services as doing so aligns with the City’s goal of restoring transit services
to pre-pandemic levels. This recommendation is estimated to increase annual operating cost
by $41,400 and requires one additional transit vehicle.
Selecting the appropriate level of services provided to the community through the SRTP
requires consideration of community desires, anticipated community usage, transit
operating costs and capital expenditures related to acquiring and maintaining transit
vehicles. While it is anticipated that SLO Transit revenues will increase with increased level
of service provided to the community, expenditures related to operating cost and capital
needs are anticipated to be greater. To reduce the impact to capital expenditures for service
augmentation, staff is considering and would appreciate Council’s guidance on whether
keeping the appropriate number of transit buse s in service longer to address this immediate
need is acceptable. While both SLO Transit and the Council has been aggressively
replacing aging transit vehicles with new Zero Emission Buses some of the existing buses
could be maintained in the fleet longer to augment services.
Page 371 of 401
Item 8a
Study Session Feedback
Now that Council has received an update on the SRTP progress and reviewed the service
alternatives analysis, staff is requesting direction as to which service alternatives to
incorporate into the draft plan. Below are several questions staff has included to help
initiate the feedback discussion.
1. Does Council agree with LSC and Staff’s preliminary recommendations to include
some or all the above listed service alternatives in the draft plan?
2. Does Council support the concept of addressing increased number of necessary
transit vehicles by keeping in service existing buses that would have normally been
removed from the inventory?
3. Does Council want to pursue a Microtransit pilot program as part of the SRTP
update? If so, should the program overlay Microtransit over the entire service area
or for specific route(s)?
4. With Cal Poly moving to a semester system in Fall 2026, SLO Transit could operate
academic service year-round since Cal Poly would be in session for more of the
year compared to their current quarter system. Would Council like to include in the
draft plan implementation of any service changes to coincide with Cal Poly
transition to a semester system?
Next Steps
LSC will update the service alternatives analysis section based on Council’s feedback
and include operational and capital costs assumptions for the service alternatives in
Working Paper 5 - Operating Budget and Financial Projections and Working Paper 7 –
Capital Improvement Plans. City staff, RTA, and LSC will also finalize a date in September
for the third Joint MTC and RTAC meeting to present the recommended service
alternatives and associated operating and capital costs.
Previous Council Action
1. January 23, 2024 – Council received and filed Transit Innovation Study and
directed staff to finalize the report and begin implementation.
2. June 6, 2023 – Adoption of the 2023-25 Financial Plan and FY 2023-24 Budget
which includes the Climate Action, Open Space, and Sustainable Transportation
Major City Goal.
3. December 13, 2022 – Council adopted the Climate Action Plan 2023-27 Work
Program which reaffirms direction to achieve the mode split objectives by 2030
and directs staff to incorporate the Transit Innovation Study findings into the Short -
Range Transit Plan update.
4. August 18, 2020 – Council adopted the Climate Action Plan for Community
Recovery establishing the 7% of trips by transit mode split objective by 2030.
5. September 20, 2016 – Council adopted the 2016 Short-Range Transit Plan.
Page 372 of 401
Item 8a
Public Engagement
LSC and staff have conducted extensive outreach for the SRTP update as outlined below.
Onboard Surveys were collected between October 23 and October 27, 2023, on
all SLO Transit fixed route and tripper services. A total of 427 survey responses
were received.
In-person Stakeholder W orkshop was held at the Ludwick Community Center on
November 8, 2023, and included individuals from RTA, the City of San Luis
Obispo, Cal Poly, and City of Paso Robles.
Community (online) Surveys were collected between November 14 and December
12, 2023, using a Survey Monkey instrument developed by LSC and using the
City’s Open City Hall program. A total of 254 survey responses were received.
Virtual Stakeholder W orkshop was held on January 18, 2024, and included
individuals from RTA, the City of San Luis Obispo, Transdev (the City’s transit
operations and maintenance contractor), SLOCOG, Cal Poly, Cuesta College, City
of Paso Robles, City of Grover Beach, and California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans).
Joint Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) and Regional Transit Advisory
Committee (RTAC) meeting was held on March 13, 2024, to present the results
from Working Papers 1, 2, and 3 and to solicit feedback from committee members
and the public as to which service alternatives should be analyzed in Working
Paper 4.
Joint Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) and Regional Transit Advisory
Committee (RTAC) meeting was held on June 5, 2024, to present and solicit
feedback on the initial service alternatives analysis that will be included in Working
Paper 4.
Community Workshops were held on June 5, 2024, in San Luis Obispo and on
June 6, 2024, in Paso Robles and in Nipomo to present and receive feedback from
the public on the initial service alternatives analysis.
City Council Study Session on July 16, 2024, provides another opportunity for the
public to provide input through written correspondence and through public
testimony.
Each of these engagement efforts have included news releases prepared and distributed
by the City’s communication team, print flyers on bus and at public facilities downtown,
and updates posted to SLO Transit’s and to RTA’s respective webpages. A third Joint
MTC and RTAC meeting is tentatively scheduled for September 2024 to present the
remaining Working Papers. The joint meeting also serves as an opportunity for the public
to attend and provide feedback.
Page 373 of 401
Item 8a
CONCURRENCE
The City’s Mass Transportation Committee and RTA’s Regional Transit Advisory
Committee held a joint meeting on June 5, 2024, to review and provide feedback the
service alternatives analysis. Committee members expressed interest in increasing
weekend service and running the academic service year -round once Cal Poly moves to
a semester system. One member suggested offering Microtransit services on weekends
instead of fixed route to help fill in service gaps. An SRTP update working group
consisting of City, RTA, and SLOCOG staff representatives have reviewed and
commented on Working Papers 1, 2, 3, and 4.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended
action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA
Guidelines Sec. 15378. Projects carried out as part of the final adopted Short-Range
Transit Plan must comply with state and local laws including environmental review or
finding of exemption.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: N/A
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
Transit Fund $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The recommended action in this report does not have an immediate impact on the Transit
Fund or the General Fund. The final SRTP will provide a five-year fiscally constrained
operating and capital budgets for FY 2025-26 through FY 2029-30. The operating and
capital budgets provided by the plan will be incorporated into the 2025-27 Financial Plan
and will inform future financial planning processes.
Page 374 of 401
Item 8a
ALTERNATIVES
Council could choose not to provide direction on which service alternatives to
include in the Short-Range Transit Plan update. Staff does not recommend this
alternative because the plan should accurately reflect Council’s vision for the future transit
services in the City and align with previous Council actions.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Working Paper 4 – Service Alternatives Analysis
Page 375 of 401
Page 376 of 401
City of San Luis Obispo Transit
Short Range Transit PlansWorking Paper 4 - Service Alternatives
Prepared for
SLO Transit
June 21, 2024
Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants
Page 377 of 401
Page 378 of 401
City of San Luis Obispo Transit
Short Range Transit Plans
Working Paper 4:
Service Alternatives
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Prepared by
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2690 Lake Forest Road, Ste. C
Tahoe City, CA 96145
June 21, 2024
Page 379 of 401
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 380 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
Chapter 1: SLO Transit Service Alternatives .............................................................................................. 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Service Frequency Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 2
Span of Service Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 6
Routing and Microtransit Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 8
Performance Analysis of SLO Transit Service Alternatives........................................................................... 14
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES PAGE
Table 1: SLO Transit Average Cash Fare per Boarding by Route. ................................................................... 2
Table 2: SLO Transit - Service Frequency and Span Alternatives ................................................................... 3
Table 3: SLO Transit- Routing and Microtransit Alternatives ....................................................................... 12
Table 4: SLO Transit - Service Alternatives Performance Analysis ............................................................... 15
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES PAGE
Figure 1: Southeast SLO Evening Microtransit .............................................................................................. 9
Figure 2: SLO Full City Microtransit ............................................................................................................. 11
Figure 3: SLO Transit Service Alternatives - Impact on Annual Marginal Operating Costs .......................... 16
Figure 4: SLO Transit Service Alternatives - Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Service Hour ............................... 16
Figure 5: SLO Transit Service Alternatives - Marginal Operating Costs per Passenger-Trip .............................17
Page 381 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page ii
This page intentionally left blank
Page 382 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 1
Chapter 1
SLO TRANSIT SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, service alternatives for SLO Transit are presented. The alternatives are based on public
input and the recommendations of related studies, including the recent SLO Transit Innovations (Transit
Innovations) Study (2024). Given the City’s goal of achieving a 7 percent transit mode split by 2030 and 12
percent transit mode split by 2035, many of the service alternatives are designed to increase ridership.
Each alternative is evaluated as a stand-alone option in this chapter; the combined impacts of the
recommended plan elements will be detailed in the Draft SLO Transit SRTP.
The following discussion of SLO Transit service alternatives is organized by the type of change proposed.
Changes to service frequency are discussed first, followed by potential changes to service hours. Then,
options for introducing microtransit service to San Luis Obispo are presented, followed by routing
alternatives. The various alternatives are then compared using the new performance standards
recommended in WP2. For each alternative, the impacts on ridership and operating costs are estimated.
Ridership and cost estimates assume implementation in FY 2025-26 and are based on the following
parameters:
1. The projected SLO Transit FY 2025-26 operating budget, as presented in the City of San Luis
Obispo 2023-25 Financial Plan Supplement, was used to estimate the operating costs of each
existing service assuming no change to service levels (“status quo” scenario). The per-hour and
per-mile costs were then used to estimate the cost impacts of the various alternatives, per the
following equation:
Change in SLO Transit Marginal Operating Cost = $50.22 X Change in Vehicle Service Hours
+ $2.23 X Change in Vehicle Service Miles
For the alternatives evaluations which follow, operating cost estimates represent “marginal”
costs. In other words, fixed costs are excluded from the analysis unless identified specifically.
The reason for looking at marginal costs of potential changes or improvements is that fixed costs
(such as administrative staff salaries, utilities and supplies) will not change if service levels are
increased or decreased. However, fuel/maintenance costs (cost per mile) and driver salary costs
(costs per hour) will increase incrementally as vehicle hours and miles are increased. Fixed costs
and capital costs will be included in the discussion when the Draft Financial Plan is prepared.
2. Ridership estimates are based on projected full-year SLO Transit FY 2023-24 ridership, expected
population growth in San Luis Obispo County during the next two years, ridership data from peer
systems, and standard transit demand elasticity factors, depending on the alternative. Elasticity is
an economic term which measures the change in behavior of one variable in response to the
change in a related variable. For example, if service levels are doubled, historical data has shown
that ridership will not double, but rather increase by around 47 percent. Elasticity factors vary for
different variables such as headways, total travel time or transfer time. Variation has also been
found in urban areas vs. suburban areas or during peak or non-peak periods. The Transit
Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System
Page 383 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 2
Changes Chapter 9 – Transit Scheduling and Frequency is a good resource for transit elasticity
factors.
3. Service was assumed to include 180 academic year weekdays, 81 non-academic year weekdays,
52 Saturdays/holidays, and 52 Sundays, unless otherwise noted.
4. The assumed average cash fares received per boarding on each route are shown in Table 1. The
average cash fare values were calculated by dividing the total annual cash fare revenue received
on the route during FY 2022-23 by total annual boardings. The average cash fare estimates do not
account for fees received from Cal Poly.
SERVICE FREQUENCY ALTERNATIVES
The Transit Innovations Study recommended increasing service frequency to improve service quality and
increase ridership. Additionally, more frequent service was one of the most requested improvements
during the onboard passenger survey (42 percent of respondents), corroborating that improving service
frequency would likely benefit SLO Transit ridership. This section considers alternatives to increase SLO
Transit service frequency. The options discussed demonstrate the wide range of potential impacts that
can result from increasing service frequency to differing extents. The service frequency alternatives are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 1 : SLO Transit Average Cash Fare per Boarding by Route
FY 2022-23
Boardings Cash Fares
Average Cash
Fare per Boarding
Route 1A 50,349 $51,823.37 $1.03
Route 1B 11,452 $9,381.51 $0.82
Route 2A 72,298 $72,317.92 $1.00
Route 2B 12,215 $12,348.40 $1.01
Route 3A 85,585 $27,594.63 $0.32
Route 3B 53,979 $14,563.33 $0.27
Route 4A 153,525 $11,662.94 $0.08
Route 4B 68,567 $4,780.27 $0.07
Laguna Tripper 7,032 $2,048.69 $0.29
Systemwide 515,002 $206,521 $0.40
Source: SLO Transit
Page 384 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 3
Table 2: SLO Transit - Service Frequency and Span Alternatives
Ridership
Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Marginal
Operating
Cost
Cash Fare
Revenues 2
Operating
Subsidy
Status Quo1
Route 1A 55,900 5,300 50,700 $379,100 $57,500 $321,600
Route 1B 20,000 3,100 29,900 $222,300 $16,400 $205,900
Route 2A 80,300 5,300 57,900 $395,100 $80,300 $314,800
Route 2B 22,100 3,100 33,200 $229,600 $22,300 $207,300
Route 3A 94,700 6,300 82,400 $499,900 $30,500 $469,400
Route 3B 65,700 4,900 61,700 $383,500 $17,700 $365,800
Route 4A 152,800 5,500 47,800 $382,600 $11,600 $371,000
Route 4B 70,900 4,000 31,000 $269,900 $4,900 $265,000
Laguna Tripper 10,100 200 2,000 $14,500 $2,900 $11,600
Old SLO Trolley 1,600 300 1,800 $19,100 $600 $18,500
System Total 574,100 38,000 398,400 $2,795,600 $244,700 $2,550,900
Service Frequency and Span Alternatives - Change from Status Quo 3
Increase Route 4 Frequency During Academic Year
Increase Route 4A Frequency - 8:00 AM - 10:00 AM 4,200 300 2,300 $20,200 $300 $19,900 1
Increase Route 4B Frequency - 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM 3,900 300 2,100 $19,700 $300 $19,400 1
Net Impact (Combined 4A and 4B)8,100 600 4,400 $39,900 $600 $39,300 1
Double Service Frequency on Routes 1, 2, 3, 4 (A & B)
Full Service Day, Year-Round 208,300 33,500 347,000 $2,455,000 $83,500 $2,371,500 8
8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Weekdays, Year-Round 119,700 19,600 234,200 $1,505,800 $48,000 $1,457,800 8
Full Service Day, Weekdays, Academic Year 153,600 20,900 231,700 $1,565,500 $61,600 $1,503,900 8
Double Service Frequency on Rts 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A
Full Service Day, Weekdays, Academic Year 89,600 11,300 133,800 $865,400 $35,900 $829,500 4
Double Service Frequency on Routes 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Full Service Day, Weekdays, Academic Year 101,200 11,600 136,100 $885,600 $40,600 $845,000 4
Extend Weekday Evening Service on A Routes
Extend Service to 12:00 AM - Academic Year 5,100 1,000 10,900 $74,500 $2,000 $72,500 0
Extend Service to 10:00 PM - Non-Academic Year 2,200 700 7,000 $50,700 $900 $49,800 0
Expand Service on B Routes
Operate B Routes on Weekends - 7:45 AM - 8:00 PM 39,600 3,200 46,000 $263,100 $15,900 $247,200 0
Operate 3B and 4B on Weekends 29,400 1,600 25,300 $136,700 $11,800 $124,900 0
Extend Routes 1B and 2B until 10:00 PM -
Weekdays, Academic Year 4,000 1,400 14,500 $102,600 $1,600 $101,000 0
Provide Academic Year Service Levels Year-
Round 16,300 2,300 26,400 $174,300 $6,500 $167,800 0
Change in Annual Service
Additional
Buses
Needed
Note 1: Status quo operations are based on FY 2023-24 ridership through 3/31/24 and expected annual population growth. Service estimates are
based on FY 2022-23 operating parameters. Cost estimates are based on the projected FY 2025-26 SLO Transit budget and the SLO Transit cost
model.
Note 2: The average cash fare per boarding by route is detailed in Table 13.
Note 3: Parameters and costs represent change over existing services. Estimates represent marginal costs and do not include fixed costs.
Page 385 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 4
Increase Route 4 Frequency During Academic Year
Routes 4A and 4B serve northeast San Luis Obispo, connecting downtown and the Cal Poly campus with
residential areas along Foothill Boulevard, Highland Drive and Grand Avenue. Service is operated on a 45-
minute loop, using one bus in each direction. Route 4 is the most popular SLO Transit service; Route 4A is
projected to provide upwards of 152,000 passenger-trips in FY 2025-26, and Route 4B is projected to
provide 70,000 passenger-trips. Increasing service frequency during peak travel periods would likely
further benefit ridership and improve connectivity between downtown and Cal Poly.
Increase Route 4A Frequency – 8:00 AM – 10:00 AM
Ridership is quite high on Route 4A (clockwise direction), particularly on the runs departing the
Government Center at 8:15 AM, 10:30 AM and 11:15 AM, all of which were observed to carry more than
50 passengers. Given this high demand, the City could increase service frequency on weekday mornings
during the academic year by adding two new runs departing the Government Center at 8:30 AM and 9:15
AM.
Operating the two additional Route 4A runs would increase the City’s marginal operating cost by $20,200
per year. An elasticity analysis based on existing ridership during this service period indicates that
ridership would be increased by an estimated 4,200 boardings per year, generating $300 in additional
cash fares (not accounting for fare revenue agreement with Cal Poly). Note that there could be additional
ridership generated by potential passengers that currently do not use the existing service due to
crowding. This alternative would require an additional peak bus.
Increase Route 4B Frequency – 3:00 PM – 5:00 PM
Route 4B, which operates in the counterclockwise direction, carries particularly high passenger loads on
the 4:00 PM and 4:45 PM runs (50 passengers each). Adding two additional runs departing the
Government Center at 4:15 PM and 5:00 PM on weekdays in the academic year could expand capacity
and improve convenience during the afternoon peak ridership period. The annual marginal operating
subsidy for the two runs would be $19,400 per year, based on the increase to service levels and fare
revenue. Adding Route 4B service in the afternoon would require an additional peak bus (though this
could be the same bus added for the 4A additional runs in the morning). It is estimated the runs would
provide 3,900 passenger-trips per year.
Double Service Frequency on All Regular Routes
A more substantial service increase would be to double service frequency on all regular SLO Transit fixed
routes (Routes 1 A/B, 2 A/B, 3 A/B, and 4 A/B). At present, SLO Transit service frequencies are relatively
low for an urban transit system, consisting of hourly service on Routes 1, 2 and 3 and service every 45
minutes on Route 4. Doubling service would result in bus service every 30 minutes on Routes 1, 2 and 3A
and every 22.5 minutes on Route 4. The increase in ridership would help to achieve sustainability goals. ,
including the Transit Innovations Study goal to increase transit mode split to 7 percent by 2030. As
discussed below, three options for doubling service frequency were considered.
Page 386 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 5
Full Day, Year-Round
Doubling service frequency on all regular SLO Transit routes for the full-service day, year-round would
result in a significant increase to the City’s marginal operating cost; service levels would increase by
33,500 vehicle service hours and 347,000 vehicle service miles per year, requiring $2.45 million in
operating funds. Eight additional vehicles would also be needed throughout the entire service day, which
would require the City to expand its existing fleet and hire more bus operators. The drastic increase to
service frequency would also have a significant impact on ridership, as elasticity analyses indicate that
systemwide ridership would grow by 208,300 passenger-trips per year, equal to a 40 percent increase in
ridership on Routes 1 through 4.
The additional fleet would also expand the required capacity of the SLO Transit maintenance facility, with
regard to bus storage, charging and maintenance work bays. Accommodating a doubling of frequency
could also exceed the capacity of the Downtown Transit Center. At present, the 5-bus capacity of the DTC
is adequate to serve the hourly service on Routes 1, 2 and 3 (as well as the other services) by offsetting
the “A” buses 30 minutes from the “B” buses. Simply adding new runs 30 minutes off of the existing
service times (to provide desirable consistent 30-minute headways) would result in six buses onsite for
Routes 1 through 3, as well as up to two buses for Route 4, as well as less frequent buses for the tripper
and express services. While the peak number of buses at the DTC could be reduced by changing the
schedules for some or all of the additional services, this would result in unbalanced service times and a
loss in transfer opportunities.
8:00 AM – 6:00 PM, Weekdays, Year-Round
SLO Transit ridership, like many transit systems, is lower in the early morning and later evening. To ensure
the more effective use of resources, the City could double service frequency from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on
weekdays only. This service enhancement would increase service levels by 19,600 vehicle service hours
and 234,200 vehicle service miles annually at a marginal operating cost of $1.5 million. To estimate the
ridership impact, elasticity analyses for each route on the proportion of ridership that occurs from 8:00
AM to 6:00 PM. In sum, doubling service frequency during the weekday daytime hours would increase
systemwide ridership by 119,700 passenger-trips per year, equal to a 23 percent increase in ridership on
Routes 1 through 4. The implications on capital needs discussed for the first of these options would be
the same for this option.
Full Day, Weekdays, Academic Year
Most SLO Transit ridership occurs during the Cal Poly academic year. Another means to double service
frequency but concentrate resources during periods of high ridership would be to double service
frequency on weekdays during the academic year. Annual service levels would increase by 20,900 vehicle
service hours and 231,700 vehicle service miles. Elasticity analyses indicate that annual ridership would
increase by 153,600 passenger-trips (a 30 percent increase in total ridership for Routes 1 through 4),
therefore the net financial impact would be a $1.56 million increase to the SLO Transit marginal operating
subsidy. The capital needs to expand the fleet, fleet facilities and passenger facilities would be the same
as discussed for the previous alternatives.
Page 387 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 6
Double Service Frequency on All A Routes, Full Weekdays, Academic Year
In consideration of the high operating cost and capital impacts of full doubling of frequency, another
option was evaluated that focuses on doubling frequency of the four “A” routes, leaving the “B” routes
unchanged. This has the advantage of providing equitable improvement of service across the SLO Transit
service area. This option focuses the service improvement across the full weekday span of service, within
the academic year only. Ridership impacts were evaluated based on an elasticity analysis of the A routes
only, with a reduction included to reflect the proportion of existing A route ridership that transfer to and
from the B routes (based on the onboard survey). This option would require an additional 11,300 vehicle-
hours and 133,800 vehicle miles of service annually. Ridership would be increased by 89,800 boardings
per year. Total operating subsidy would be increased by $829,500 annually, and four additional buses
would need to be operated.
Double Service Frequency on Routes 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, Full Weekdays, Academic Year
Another approach to a partial increase in service frequency would be to focus additional service on the
two best performing of the four main routes, specifically Routes 3 and 4 (both A and B directions), for the
full span of service in the academic year. This option would increase service by 11,600 vehicle-hours and
136,100 vehicle-miles per year. Considering the impact of no availability of direct transfers between
Routes 3 and 4 and Routes 1 and 2, ridership would be increased by 101,200 boardings per year.
Operating subsidy would be increased by $845,000 annually, and four additional buses would need to be
in operation at peak times.
SPAN OF SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
The next set of SLO Transit alternatives focus on the “span of service,” or the hours that transit services
operate. Passengers requested multiple changes to the SLO Transit span of service during the onboard
passenger survey; the most requested service improvements were later evening service (54 percent of
respondents), more frequent service (42 percent), additional Saturday service (39 percent), and
additional Sunday service (32 percent). The span of service alternatives are also summarized in Table 2.
Extend Weekday Evening Service on A Routes
To provide residents with a later-night transit option, two alternatives for extending service on Routes 1A,
2A, 3A, and 4A were considered.
Extend Service to 12:00 AM – Academic Year
Currently, the last departures on weekdays during the academic year on the A Routes occur at 9:15 PM
(Routes 1A and 2A), 10:15 PM (Route 3A) and 10:30 (Route 4A), terminating the last runs 45 minutes
later. Extending service on all four A Routes until midnight would add Route 1A and Route 2A departures
at 10:15 PM and 11:15 PM and Route 3A and 3B departures at 11:15 PM. Based on late evening ridership
on transit services at other California universities, this additional service is estimated to increase ridership
by 5,100 boardings per year. While it would not require additional vehicles to operate, the increase in
service hours and miles would result in an increase in operating cost of $74,500 per year.
Page 388 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 7
Extend Service to 10:00 PM – Non-Academic Year
During the non-academic year, the last runs start at 7:15 PM on Routes 1A, 2A, and 3A and 7:30 PM on
Route 4A. Extending service until roughly 10:00 PM would require operating two additional runs on
Routes 1A, 2A and 3A, and three additional runs on Route 4A. An evaluation of ridership by hour in the
academic versus non-academic year as well as ridership patterns in typical small urban areas indicates
that these additional runs would generate 2,200 passenger-trips per year. Annual operating costs would
be increased by $50,700. No additional buses would be required.
Expand Service on B Routes
Operate B Routes on Weekends – 7:45 AM – 8:00 PM
The four counterclockwise B routes do not operate on weekends. As a result, service is limited to the
large one-way A routes. While the fact that some key corridors are served by more than one A route
(such as DTC – Foothill Boulevard or DTC – Madonna Road) still provides some direct bi-directional
service, other trips can require a long travel time around the majority of the one-way A loop. As an
example, a trip between the DTC and Broad/Santa Barbara requires a 34-minute in-vehicle travel time on
Route 4A, compared to only seven minutes when Route 4B is operating. In addition, some stops (such as
the Amtrak Station) are served only on B routes and thus do not have any service on weekends. The
reduction in service also effectively reduces the available frequency of service.
Operating all four B routes on Saturdays and Sundays (as well as holidays on which weekend service is
provided) would incur an annual operating cost of $263,100. An evaluation of the weekday versus
weekend ridership on the A routes during the same service span as well as the existing weekday B
ridership by route indicates that overall ridership would increase by 39,600 passenger-trips per year. Note
that no additional buses would be required to provide this service expansion.
Operate Routes 3B and 4B on Weekends
Another option would be to focus the additional B Route weekend service on Routes 3 and 4, which have
the highest ridership. This would result in an annual marginal operating cost increase of $136,700 and an
increase in annual ridership of 29,400. This option performs the best out of all the weekend options.
Extend Routes 1B and 2B until 10:00 PM – Weekdays, Academic Year
While Routes 3A and 4B provide departures up until 10:00 PM on weekdays during the academic year,
the last Route 1B and Route 2B departures of the day currently is provided at 5:45 PM, reducing the
convenience of transit services for the southern portions of San Luis Obispo by increasing travel times,
reducing frequency and eliminating service to some stops. Consistent B route service could be provided
throughout the city by operating an additional 4 daily trips of Routes 1B and 2B on academic weekdays,
with the last departures at 9:45 PM.
An analysis of ridership on existing services on weekday evenings during the academic year indicates that
operating these additional runs would serve approximately 4,000 additional passenger-trips per year.
Page 389 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 8
While additional buses would not be required, annual operating costs would be increased by $102,600
annually.
Provide Existing Academic Year Span of Service Year Round
Cal Poly administration has indicated plans to expand class offerings and associated student activity levels
in the summer. While specific details have yet to be defined, it is worthwhile to evaluate the cost and
baseline ridership impacts of providing the same span and level of service currently offered in the
academic year over the entire year. This would increase annual vehicle-hours by approximately 2,400 and
annual vehicle-miles by approximately 26,400. Baseline additional ridership is estimated based on
existing average productivity in the non-academic year (7.1 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour),
yielding a total increase of 16,300. Note that there may be additional increases in ridership generated by
an increase in summer Cal Poly activity. Overall, annual operating costs would be increased by $174,300.
No additional fleet would be required. This option also has the benefit of providing more consistent year-
round driver schedules, which has the potential to increase driver retention.
ROUTING AND MICROTRANSIT ALTERNATIVES
Another set of alternatives were considered regarding route realignments and the provision of
microtransit service. These alternatives are summarized in Table 3.
Implement Evening Microtransit Pilot in Southeast San Luis Obispo
Microtransit is a relatively new form of demand response public transit. Through the use of technology
and phone apps, it is possible for a passenger to request a ride “on-demand” within certain areas and
certain times. The benefit of microtransit is that it is not limited to a set route with set stops, but rather
passengers can be picked up at their curb and dropped off at the curb of their destination. This allows
homes on the outlying edges of neighborhoods to be served more directly. The disadvantage of
microtransit is that if there is high demand for service, there could be a 30-minute or longer wait for a
ride. Passengers who depend on public transit to travel to work or appointments at specific times may
find microtransit less convenient.
Microtransit has been successful in areas that are not easily served by a fixed route, low productive fixed
routes or during the evenings and weekends, when there is less demand. Generally, SLO Transit Routes
are very productive and therefore, it is not cost effective to replace the fixed routes with on-demand
microtransit. However, the option of microtransit in the evening, when demand is typically lower, was
explored.
As part of this alternative, replacing Route 1A with microtransit service between the hours of 7 PM and 9
PM on a year-round basis was reviewed. Currently, Route 1B ends service at 6:30 PM. Therefore, hourly
service is only available in the clockwise direction between 7 PM and 9 PM. Routes 1A and 1B serve
residences in southeast San Luis Obispo as well as the San Luis Airport. Figure 1 presents an example
microtransit service area.
In order to serve the level of transit demand currently seen on Route 1A during the evening hours, two
vehicles would be needed to provide service between 7 PM and 9 PM and only one vehicle would be
Page 390 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 9
needed during the 9 PM hour. This would cost an additional $33,600 annually in operating costs
(including the costs of the annual technology license). As SLO Transit does not currently have small
vehicles in their fleet, two vans would also need to be procured to operate this service.
Given the fact that curb to curb service would be available, around 250 more homes could be served
directly with microtransit than with the fixed route. Therefore, there would be a small increase in
ridership over the existing Route 1A evening ridership by around 100 trips per year. As development
progresses along Tank Farm Road, this microtransit service area could be expanded. However, as demand
for service increases, another vehicle would be required, further increasing costs.
Figure 1
Southeast SLO Evening Microtransit
Page 391 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 10
Implement Late Night Microtransit Pilot - Academic Year
Microtransit could be more widely applied to the entire city as a “Late Night” service. SLO Transit services
are not available past 11 PM and only Routes 3 and 4 operate this late during the academic year. The
general geographic extent of a potential city-wide late night microtransit service area is displayed in
Figure 2. As part of this alternative, microtransit would be available between 10 PM and midnight during
the academic year. In order to maintain a reasonable level of cost, this alternative assumes that three
vans would be used for an annual operating cost of $122,800 if service is provided only on weekdays
during the academic year and $160,600 if service is provided 7 days a week during the academic year
(only two peak vehicles would be required). Ridership was estimated by reviewing ridership by hour on
other microtransit services. For the weekday scenario around 4,700 trips are estimated. If late night
microtransit were operated 7 days/week, roughly 7,100 trips could be carried.
If implemented, this should be a one-to-two-year pilot program. Again, three vans would need to be
procured, if the current contractor is used. Alternatively, some areas have had success in procuring a
separate contractor who specializes in microtransit to operate as a “turnkey” service. Under this scenario,
the City would not have to purchase new vehicles or the microtransit software, as it would be included in
the total cost of the contract.
Reinstate Route 6X
Prior to COVID, Route 6X was operated on Thursday evenings during the academic year, connecting the
Cal Poly Campus with the Downtown Transit Center on Thursday evenings (which the Farmers Market is
in operation) from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM. One bus was used to operate a loop route every half hour.
Ridership averaged 2,600 passenger-trips per year. Considering the historic ridership and the changes in
overall transit ridership since 2020, a reinstated service is estimated to serve 2,200 passenger-trips per
year. The annual operating cost would be relatively modest, at $7,200 annually.
Reinstate SLO Tripper
Prior to the pandemic, the SLO Tripper route consisted of 2 AM and 2 PM runs per school day connecting
the Transit Center with SLO High School. If this route were reinstated, the current operating cost would
be $18,500 per year. San Luis Coastal Unified School District data indicates that the High School
enrollment has increased by 3 percent since 2019. Applying this factor to the 2019 ridership, this service
would carry approximately 7,100 passenger-trips per year and require an operating cost of $17,200. An
additional bus would need to be operated.
Page 392 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 11
Page 393 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 12
Table 3: SLO Transit - Routing and Microtransit Alternatives
Ridership
Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Marginal
Operating
Cost
Cash Fare
Revenues 3
Operating
Subsidy
Status Quo1
Route 1A 55,900 5,300 50,700 $379,100 $57,500 $321,600
Route 1B 20,000 3,100 29,900 $222,300 $16,400 $205,900
Route 2A 80,300 5,300 57,900 $395,100 $80,300 $314,800
Route 2B 22,100 3,100 33,200 $229,600 $22,300 $207,300
Route 3A 94,700 6,300 82,400 $499,900 $30,500 $469,400
Route 3B 65,700 4,900 61,700 $383,500 $17,700 $365,800
Route 4A 152,800 5,500 47,800 $382,600 $11,600 $371,000
Route 4B 70,900 4,000 31,000 $269,900 $4,900 $265,000
Laguna Tripper 10,100 200 2,000 $14,500 $2,900 $11,600
Old SLO Trolley 1,600 300 1,800 $19,100 $600 $18,500
System Total 574,100 38,000 398,400 $2,795,600 $244,700 $2,550,900
Routing and Microtransit Alternatives - Change from Status Quo2
Implement Evening Microtransit Pilot in Southeast SLO 4
7:00 PM - 10:00 PM, Weekdays, Year-Round 100 500 8,800 $33,600 $200 $33,400 2
Implement Late Night Microtransit Pilot - Weekdays, Academic Year 4
10:00 PM - 12:00 AM, Weekdays, Academic Year 4,700 1,400 17,500 $122,800 $11,100 $111,700 3
10:00 PM - 12:00 AM, 7 Days/Week, Academic Year 7,100 1,700 21,625 $160,600 $11,100 $149,500 3
Reinstate Route 6X 2,200 100 1,000 $7,200 $900 $6,300 1
Reinstate SLO Tripper 7,100 280 1,430 $17,200 $2,800 $14,400 1
Reinstate Highland Tripper 6,600 230 2,430 $17,000 $2,600 $14,400 1
Revise Routes 1 and 3 in Downtown SLO
Route 1A 3,200 0 1,600 $3,500 $3,300 $200 0
Route 1B 3,600 0 -600 -$1,400 $3,000 -$4,400 0
Route 3A 6,900 0 0 $0 $2,200 -$2,200 0
Route 3B 4,000 0 -3,500 -$7,700 $1,100 -$8,800 0
Total 17,700 0 -2,500 -$5,600 $9,600 -$15,200 0
Note 4: Assumes a general microtransit fare of $4.00 per one-way trip, or an average fare of $2.36 per passenger. Costs include $4,500/year for app
license for one vehicle.
Change in Annual Service(2)
Additional
Vehicles
Needed
Note 1: Status quo operations are based on FY 2023-24 ridership through 3/31/24 and expected annual population growth. Service estimates are
Note 3: The average cash fare per boarding by route is detailed in Table 13.
Note 2: Parameters and costs represent change over existing services. Estimates represent marginal costs and do not include fixed costs.
Page 394 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 13
Reinstate Highland Tripper
An additional tripper that has not been operated since the pandemic is the Highland Tripper. This is a
short loop route connecting the Cal Poly campus with the housing areas to the west with three round-
trips per school day, and provide additional capacity and service times in the peak AM travel period.
Considering the previous ridership and the overall change in Cal Poly ridership since the pandemic, this
service would currently carry roughly 6,600 annual passenger-trips. Reinstating this service would
increase operating cost needs by $17,000, and would require operation of an additional bus.
Revised Routes 1 and 3 in Downtown San Luis Obispo
As discussed in Technical Memorandum 3, the on-time performance of Routes 2 and 3 is poor. Over a
total of 298 runs observed as part of this study, 65 percent of Route 2A runs were more than 5 minutes
behind schedule, along with 49 percent of Route 2B runs, 48 percent of Route 3A runs and 47 percent of
Route 3B runs. In addition to adding uncertainty to service times on each route, this low level of
dependability results in missed transfers to/from other routes.
The following options were evaluated to potentially reduce running time and improve on-time
performance:
Both Route 2A and 2B in the outbound direction could be streamlined somewhat by traveling along
Higuera Street between Higuera/Nipomo and Higuera/Pismo, rather than using Nipomo Street and Pismo
Street. This would reduce the route length by 0.2 miles and save roughly 1 minute of travel time. It would
eliminate service to two existing stops (Nipomo at Pismo and Pismo at Archer, that serve 6 passenger-
trips per day, or approximately 2,000 passengers per year. Given the limited reduction in travel time, this
option is not considered further.
In the inbound direction, both Routes 2A and 2B operate a relatively direct route along Marsh Street to
Santa Rosa Street, then travel west on Mill and south on Osos to the transit center. A faster option would
be to enter US 101 northbound at the Marsh Street interchange and exit at Osos Street, which would
reduce running time by approximately 4 minutes. However, existing stops at Marsh/Archer, Marsh/Broad,
March/Osos, and Santa Rosa/Higuera would be missed. These stops serve approximately 13 passengers
per day, or 6,200 per year (70 percent on Route 2A and 30 percent on Route 2B). As this option would
have a substantial impact on existing ridership and would eliminate much of the service between
southwest downtown San Luis Obispo and the Transit Center, it is not considered further.
Routes 3A and 3B between the downtown transit center and Higuera Street/South Street both travel
along South Street and Santa Barbara Street. Route 3B also serves the Amtrak Station at the end of Santa
Rosa Street, while Route 3A travels along Osos Street. Routes could be shortened by using Pismo Street
between Santa Rosa Street and Higuera Street on Route 3A and using Marsh Street on Route 3B. This
would reduce Route 3A route length by 0.7 miles and reduce Route 3B route length by 0.9 miles. Service
would be eliminated to 7 stops on Route 3A and 8 stops on Route 3B. Total ridership at these stops is
currently roughly 31 passengers per day or 7,600 per year, evenly split between the two individual routes.
However, given the slower running speeds in downtown compared with High Street and the southern
portion of Santa Barbara Street, only roughly 1 minute of travel time would be saved in each direction.
This option is not considered further, given the substantial impact on ridership and limited benefit to
running time.
Page 395 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 14
Another option would be to reroute Routes 3A and 3B onto US 101 between the Downtown Transit
Center and the Madonna Street interchange and shift Routes 1A and 1B onto the exiting Routes 3A/3B
routes between Broad Street/High Street and the Downtown Transit Center. This realignment is shown in
Figure 2. This would reduce the running time of Route 3A by roughly 5 minutes and Route 3B by roughly 7
minutes, which would significantly improve the on-time performance of Routes 3A and 3B.
Service would be fully eliminated from only a total of four existing stops. Setting aside those stops within
a quarter mile walk of other remaining stops, those stops that lose all convenient service consists of the
following:
• Broad at Islay (Route 1A)
• Broad at Leff (Route 1B)
• South at King W (Route 3A)
• South at King W (Route 3B)
The stops along Broad Street on Routes 1A/1B in total currently serve 2 passenger-trips per day or 800
per year, while the stops along South Street on Routes 3A/3B currently serve 7 passenger trips per day or
1,000 per year, for a total of 9 daily trips and 1,800 annual trips.
This realignment option would also reduce service between the downtown Transit Center and central
downtown San Luis Obispo by rerouting Route 1 out of the area. However, as the current Route 1
schedule is very close to the Route 2 schedule in both directions, this would not significantly reduce the
convenience of transit service. This option would also reduce the travel times between southwest San
Luis Obispo and the Downtown Transit Center. Improving the dependability of Route 3A/3B would also
improve the connections to other routes at the Transit Center. Running times on Route 1A/1B are not
expected to change significantly; while the revised Route 1A is 0.3 miles longer than at present, it would
avoid congestion in the lower downtown area.
As shown in Table 3, this strategy would not change vehicle-hours of service but would reduce annual
vehicle-miles by 2,500. Ridership impact was estimated based on the ridership change associated with
improvements in dependability, the changes in in-vehicle travel time, the loss of ridership at the four
stops with elimination of service, as well as the shift in existing Routes 3A/3B ridership to Routes 1A/1B.
Overall, annual ridership is estimated to increase by a total of 17,700 passenger boardings per year.
Considering the operating costs savings generated by the reduction in mileage plus the additional
passenger revenues, the net operating subsidy would be reduced by $15,200 per year. No additional
buses would be required.
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF SLO TRANSIT SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
To evaluate the relative performance of the alternatives above, key impacts of each alternative were
compared. The change from the status quo ridership, marginal operating cost, passengers carried per
vehicle hour, and marginal operating cost per passenger were compared. This evaluation gives insight
regarding the relative advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives. Table 4 and Figures 2-5 show the
relative performance of the service alternatives. Green highlight in Table 4 indicates alternatives which
meet performance standards developed as part of Working Paper #2.
Page 396 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 15
Ridership
The impact of the various alternatives on annual ridership is shown in Figure 2. As indicated, the
alternatives vary widely, ranging from very little change in ridership associated with providing evening
microtransit service in southeast San Luis Obispo (replacing Route 1 service) up to 208,300 passenger-
trips per year generated by doubling service throughout the year across the operating day. Excluding the
options of doubling frequency, the greatest ridership increase is generated by operating the B routes on
weekend days (39,600) followed by operating just Route 3B and 4B on weekends (29,400) and revising
Routes 1 and 3 in downtown San Luis Obispo (17,700).
Table 4: SLO Transit - Service Alternatives Performance Analysis
Annual
Ridership
Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Annual Marginal
Operating Cost 1
Passenger-
Trips per
Vehicle
Service Hour
Marginal Op.
Cost per
Passenger-
Trip
Increase Route 4 A/B Frequency During Academic Year
Increase Route 4A Frequency - 8:00 AM - 10:00 AM 4,200 300 2,300 $20,200 14.0 $4.81
Increase Route 4B Frequency - 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM 3,900 300 2,100 $19,700 13.0 $5.05
Double Service Frequency on Routes 1, 2, 3, 4 (A & B)
Full Service Day, Year-Round 208,300 33,500 347,000 $2,455,000 6.2 $11.79
8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Weekdays, Year-Round 119,700 19,600 234,200 $1,505,800 6.1 $12.58
Full Service Day, Weekdays, Academic Year 153,600 20,900 231,700 $1,565,500 7.3 $10.19
Double Service Frequency on Routes 1, 2, 3, 4 (A Only)
Full Service Day, Weekdays, Academic Year 89,600 11,300 133,800 $865,400 7.9 $9.66
Double Service Frequency on Routes 3, 4 (A & B)
Full Service Day, Weekdays, Academic Year 101,200 11,600 136,100 $885,600 8.7 $8.75
Extend Weekday Evening Service on A Routes
Extend Service to 12:00 AM - Academic Year 5,100 1,000 10,900 $74,500 5.1 $14.61
Extend Service to 10:00 PM - Non-Academic Year 2,200 700 7,000 $50,700 3.1 $23.05
Expand Service on B Routes
Operate B Routes on Weekends Year Round - 7:45 AM - 8:00 PM 39,600 3,200 46,000 $263,100 12.4 $6.64
Operate 3B and 4B on Weekends 29,400 1,600 25,300 $136,700 18.4 $4.65
Extend Routes 1B and 2B until 10:00 PM -
Weekdays, Academic Year 4,000 1,400 14,500 $102,600 2.9 $25.65
Provide Academic Year Service Levels Year-Round 16,300 2,300 26,400 $174,300 7.1 $10.69
Implement Evening Microtransit Service in SE SLO 100 500 8,800 $33,600 0.20 $336.00
Implement Late Night Microtransit - Weekdays 4,700 1,400 17,500 $122,800 3.4 $26.13
Implement Late Night Microtransit - 7 days/week 7,100 1,700 21,625 $160,600 4.2 $22.62
Reinstate Route 6X 2,200 100 1,000 $7,200 22.0 $3.27
Reinstate SLO Tripper 7,100 280 1,430 $17,200 25.4 $2.42
Reinstate Highland Tripper 6,600 230 2,430 $17,000 28.7 $2.58
Revise Routes 1 and 3 in Downtown SLO 17,700 0 -2,500 -5,600 NA -$0.32
Recommended
Performance
Standards
11.5 $11.23
Note 1: Does not include fixed costs
Net Impact
Alternatives meeting performance standards shaded in green. Note that alternatives meet standards by
increasing ridership at a greater rate than costs, eliminating a service not meeting standards, or increasing
ridership while decreasing costs.
Page 397 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 16
Page 398 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 17
Marginal Operating Cost
Similar to the ridership impacts, the impact on annual marginal operating costs also vary widely, as shown
in Figure 3. At the high end, the full doubling of transit service across all service periods over the year
would increase operating costs by $2.45 Million, while limiting the doubling of service frequency to the
academic year would cost $1.56 Million, and limiting to daytime hours through the full year would cost
$1.5 Million. Doubling frequency on just the A Routes or Routes 3 and 4 (both A and B) would cost on the
order of $865,400 and $885,600, respectively.
On the other end, revising Routes 1 and 3 in downtown San Luis Obispo would yield a small overall
reduction in annual operating cost of $6,100. Beyond doubling frequency, other service alternatives that
are relatively costly are operating B routes on weekends ($263,100), implementing late night microtransit
service ($122,800) and operating Routes 1B and 2B on weekday evenings in the academic year
($102,600).
Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Service Hour
A standard measure of the productivity of a transit service is the passenger-trips served per vehicle-hour
of service. As shown in Figure 4, the “best” alternative by this measure is reinstating Highland Tripper,
which would serve 28.7 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour. This is followed by reinstating the SLO Tripper
and Route 6X. Operating Route 3B and 4B on Weekends (18.4), increasing Route 4A morning frequency
in the academic year (14.0), increasing Route 4B afternoon frequency in the academic year (13.0) and
operating the B routes on weekends (12.4) all meet productivity standards. The options that double
Page 399 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 18
service frequency range from 6.1 to 8.7 passengers per vehicle service hour, with the most productive
being doubling service on Routes 3 and 4 in the academic year only. The worst option by this measure is
replacing evening Route 1 service with microtransit, which adds vehicle-hours but is not forecast to
change ridership very much. Note that the revision of Routes 1 and 3 in downtown San Luis Obispo
cannot be evaluated by this measure, as the number of vehicle-hours is not changed.
As discussed in Working Paper 2, the standard for this measure is a minimum of 11.5 passenger-trips per
vehicle service hour. Those alternatives that meet this standard are reinstating Route 6X, Highland
Tripper and SLO Tripper, increasing Route 4A frequency in the morning during the academic year,
increasing Route 4B frequency in late afternoons during the academic year, and operating the B routes on
weekends year-round, particularly 3B and 4B.
Marginal Operating Cost per Passenger-Trip
A final performance measure is the marginal operating cost per passenger-trip. This is a good measure of
the financial performance of the various alternatives, with the better alternatives indicated by a lower
value. Figure 5 indicates the “best” alternative by this measure is the revision of Routes 1 and 3 in
downtown San Luis Obispo, which saves $0.32 for every additional passenger-trip served (as it reduces
costs while increasing ridership). At the other extreme, replacing Route 1 in the evening with microtransit
requires a $357 per new trip served, followed by implementing late night microtransit service ($26.13),
followed by Route 1B and 2B service until 10 PM ($25.65). Considering the standard of no more than
$11.23 per passenger-trip, those that achieve the standard consist of:
• Routes 1 and 3 revisions in downtown San Luis Obispo
• Reinstating pre-COVID services such as Route 6X, Highland Tripper and SLO Tripper
• Increasing Route 4A frequency in the mornings during the academic year
• Increasing Route 4B frequency in the late afternoons in the academic year
• Operating the B routes on weekends year-round, 3B and 4B in particular
• Doubling frequency on all routes for a full-service day, weekdays, during the academic year
• Doubling frequency on the A routes for a full-service day, weekdays, during the academic year
• Doubling frequency on Routes 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B for a full-service day, weekdays during the
academic year.
• Provide academic year service levels year-round
Summary
Based on this performance analysis the following service alternatives have the greatest potential to
enhance the SLO Transit service and should be carried forward into the plan development process:
• Realigning Routes 1 and 3 in downtown San Luis Obispo.
• Providing B route service on weekend days year-round.
• Increasing Route 4A frequency on weekday mornings in the academic year.
• Increasing Route 4B frequency on weekday afternoons in the academic year.
• Reinstating pre-COVID routes: Route 6X, Highland Tripper and SLO Tripper.
Page 400 of 401
SLO Transit SRTP – Working Paper 4 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
SLO Transit Page 19
While doubling service frequency would generate substantial ridership benefits, it would require
significant new funding sources as well as consideration of capital fleet and facility needs. Doubling
frequency on Routes 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B would have the lowest marginal operating cost per new
passenger-trip served.
Page 401 of 401
1
SLO Transit Short-Range Transit Plan
Update Study Session
July 16, 2024
2
Recommendation
Receive a presentation on the progress of SLO Transit’s
Short-Range Transit Plan update, including service
alternatives analysis, provide direction regarding which
service alternatives to incorporate into the plan update, and
provide direction to staff to return in fall 2024 with a draft
plan for Council’s review.
3
•Population Trends
•Transit Needs
•Operational Performance
Evaluate Existing Conditions
•Route Modifications
•Span of Service Changes
•New Delivery Modes
Develop Potential Solutions
•Service Plan
•Capital Plan
•Financial Plan
Compile into 5-Year “Business Plan”
What is a Short-Range Transit Plan?
The Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is a 5-year business plan that helps transit
agencies make important operational and capital decisions to better meet the current
and future needs of the community.
Fall and Winter 2023
Done
Spring and Summer 2024
In Progress
Fall and Winter 2025
Coming Up
4
SRTP Update Approach
WP1: Overview of Transit Services
WP2: Goals, Objectives, and Standards
WP3: Service and System Evaluation
WP4: Service Alternatives Analysis
WP5: Operating Budget and Financial Projections
WP6: Marketing Plans and Goals
WP7: Capital Improvement Plans
WP8: Joint Coordination Analysis
COMPLETED
UP NEXT
5
Working Paper 1 – Overview of Transit Services
Regular Fixed Routes:
•1, 2, 3, 4
•A Routes – Clockwise, Monday – Sunday
•B Routes – Counterclockwise, Weekdays Only
Trippers:
•Laguna, SLO (Suspended), and Highland (Suspended)
•Academic Year, Weekdays Only
Express:
•6 Express (Suspended)
Seasonal:
•Old SLO Trolley (Thursdays Only)
6
Working Paper 2 – Goals, Objectives,
and Standards
Purpose: Describe the organization’s Goals and Objectives and provide standards and
performance measures needed to attain them.
Example Goal: Major City Goal (MCG) Strategic Approach 4.3 - “Preserve and Enhance
Convenient and Equitable Alternative and Sustainable Transportation Options”
Example Objectives: Transit Mode Split Objectives of 7% by 2030 and 12% by 2035
Example Standard: Frequency of Service
Example (Proposed) Measure: 15-minute at peak, 30-minute off peak, 60-minute
minimum
7
Working Paper 3 – Service and System
Evaluation
Presents supplemental demographic and ridership
data, as well as passenger, community, stakeholder,
and bus operator feedback
Evaluates ten-year operations and performance data,
with a focus on the agency’s recent fiscal year.
Demographic and economic data trends related to
transit demand
8
Transit Needs Index
Assessment
Areas in red and orange have a greater relative need for
transit services:
•Downtown
•Neighborhoods near Cal Poly
•South-Central SLO
All areas of medium to high need are currently served by
some level of transit
A Transit Needs Index Assessment shows which areas have
the greatest need for transit services based on the
concentration of transit-dependent residents. The transit-
dependent individuals include youths, senior adults, persons
with a disability, persons with low-income, and persons who
live in zero-vehicle households.
9
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
Ten-Year Trend Analysis
SLO Transit Annual Ridership
Pandemic
Years
Ten -Year Change in Operations
Years Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Operating
Costs
Local
Revenue
2013-14 32,983 399,892 $ 3,235,378 $ 650,800
2022-23 30,870 343,103 $ 4,252,122 $ 742,743
% Change - 6%- 14%+ 31%+ 14%
10
FY 2022-23 Operations and Performance
8
1
6
7
6
4
3
9
12
90
38
90
82
46
46
47
32
65
87
10
35
6
11
21
13
28
10
21
1
12
1
2
4
1
9
15
8
1
21
34
11
40
5
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Laguna Tripper
Old SLO Trolley
Route 4B
Route 4A
Route 3B
Route 3A
Route 2B
Route 2A
Route 1B
Route 1A
Early On-Time 6-10 Min. Late 11-15 Min. Late >15 Min. Late
On-Time Performance by Route
11
2%
7%
12%
20%
15%
17%
14%
12%
0%5%10%15%20%
8 PM to 10 PM
6 PM to 8 PM
4 PM to 6 PM
2 PM to 4 PM
12 PM to 2 PM
10 AM to 12 PM
8 AM to 10 AM
6 AM to 8 AM
Boarding Times of Surveyed Passengers
7%
11%
12%
32%
39%
0%10%20%30%40%
Newspaper
Community Events
Printed Mailer
Email Newsletter
Social Media
Preferred Sources of Information
12%
20%
32%
39%
42%
54%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Improved Bus Stops
More Routes /
Extended Service
Add'l Sunday Service
Add'l Saturday Service
More Frequent Service
Later Evening Service
Desired Service Improvements
On a scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent), riders gave SLO
Transit’s the following rankings:
4.1 - Overall Service
Highest Ranked
4.6 – Driver Courtesy
4.5 – Safety and Security
Lowest Ranked
3.7 – On-time Performance
3.6 – Service Frequency
12
Working Paper 4 – Service Alternatives
Analysis
Service alternatives are based on public input and the
recommendations of related studies, including the recent
Transit Innovations Study.
Many of the service alternatives are designed to increase
ridership to help achieve the City’s Transit Mode Split
Objectives.
Each alternative is evaluated as a stand-alone option in this
chapter; the combined impacts of the recommended
alternatives will be detailed in the Draft Plan.
13
Category 1: Service Frequency Alternatives
Status
Quo Changes in Annual Service
Service Alternative Ridership Ridership Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Marginal
Operating
Cost
Cash
Fares
Add’l
Buses
Needed
Increase Route 4 Service Frequency During Academic Year
Route 4A
(8:00 am to 10:00 am)152,800 4,200 300 2,300 $ 20,200 $ 300 1
Route 4B
(3:00 pm to 5:00 pm)70,900 3,900 300 2,100 $ 19,700 $ 300 1
Double Service Frequency on Routes 1, 2, 3, and 4 (A & B)
Full-Service Day, Year-Round 574,100 208,300 33,500 347,000 $ 2,455,000 $ 83,500 8
8:00 am to 6:00 pm,
Weekdays, Year-Round 574,100 119,700 19,600 234,200 $ 1,505,800 $ 48,000 8
Full-Service Day, Weekdays,
Academic Year 574,100 153,600 20,900 231,700 $ 1,565,500 $ 61,600 8
Double Service Frequency on Routes 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A
Full-Service Day, Weekdays,
Academic Year 383,700 89,600 11,300 133,800 $ 865,400 $ 35,900 4
Double Service Frequency on Routes 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B
Full-Service Day, Weekdays,
Academic Year 384,100 101,200 11,600 136,100 $ 885,600 $ 40,600 4
Full Analysis
on Packet
Pages 386-388
14
Category 2: Span of Services Alternatives
Status
Quo Changes in Annual Service
Service Alternative Ridership Ridership Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Marginal
Operating
Cost
Cash
Fares
Add’l
Buses
Needed
Extend Weekday Evening Service on A Routes
Extend Service to 12:00 am,
Academic Year 383,700 5,100 1,000 10,900 $ 74,500 $ 2,000 0
Extend Service to 10:00 pm,
Non-Academic Year 383,700 2,200 700 7,000 $ 50,700 $ 900 0
Expand Service on B Routes
Operate B Routes on
Weekends, 7:45 am to 8:00 pm 178,700 39,600 3,200 46,100 $ 263,100 $ 15,900 0
Operate 3B and 4B on
Weekends 178,700 29,400 1,600 25,300 $ 136,700 $ 11,800 0
Extend Routes 1B and 2B until
10:00 pm, Weekdays,
Academic Year
178,700 4,000 1,400 14,500 $ 102,600 $ 1,600 0
Provide Academic Year Service Levels Year-Round
574,100 16,300 2,300 26,400 $ 174,300 $ 6,500 0
Full Analysis on
Packet Pages
388-390
15
Category 3: Microtransit Alternatives
Status
Quo Changes in Annual Service
Service Alternative Ridership Ridership Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Marginal
Operating
Cost
Cash
Fares
Add’l
Buses
Needed
Evening Microtransit, Southeast SLO
7:00 pm to 10:00 pm,
weekdays, Year-Round 55,900 100 500 8,800 $ 33,600 $ 200 2
Late Night Microtransit, Citywide
10:00 pm to 12:00am,
Weekdays, Academic Year 574,100 4,700 1,400 17,500 $ 122,800 $ 11,100 3
10:00 pm to 12:00am, 7
Days/Week, Academic Year 574,100 7,100 1,700 21,625 $ 160,600 $ 11,100 3
What is Microtransit? Microtransit is a relatively new form of demand response public transit.
The benefit of Microtransit is that it is not limited to a set route with set stops, but rather
passengers can be picked up at their curb and dropped off at the curb of their destination. This
allows homes on the outlying edges of neighborhoods to be served more directly.
Full Analysis
on Packet
Pages 390-
392
16
Category 3: Microtransit Alternatives
17
Category 4: Route Realignment and Service
Reinstatement Alternatives
Status
Quo Changes in Annual Service
Service Alternative Ridership Ridership Service
Hours
Service
Miles
Marginal
Operating
Cost
Cash
Fares
Add’l
Buses
Needed
Revise Route 1 and 3 in Downtown Area
236,300 17,700 0 -2,500 -$ 5,600 $ 9,600 0
Reinstate Route 6 Express
0 2,200 100 1,000 $ 7,200 $ 900 1
Reinstate SLO Tripper
0 7,100 280 1,430 $ 17,200 $ 2,800 1
Reinstate Highland Tripper
0 6,600 230 2,430 $ 17,000 $ 2,600 1
Full Analysis
on Packet
Pages 392-
396
Service Alternatives Preliminary
Recommendations
1.Realign Routes 1 and 3 in downtown San Luis Obispo
•Benefit: Helps address on-time performance issue
•Impact: Estimated to have a minor savings in operating costs of $5,600 a year and will
not require any additional transit vehicles
2.Provide B route service on weekend days year-round
•Benefit: Highly requested in SLOCOG’s Transit Needs Assessment as well as through
the outreach conducted as part of the SRTP update.
•Impact: This recommendation is estimated to increase operating cost by $263,100 a
year and will not require any additional transit vehicles.
Service Alternatives Preliminary
Recommendations
3.Increase Route 4A frequency on weekday mornings in the academic year
•Benefit: One of the best performing routes
•Impact: Estimated to increase annual operating cost by $20,200 and requires one additional
transit vehicle
4.Increase Route 4B frequency on weekday afternoons in the academic year
•Benefit: One of the best performing routes
•Impact: Estimated to increase annual operating cost by $19,700 and requires one additional
transit vehicle
5.Reinstate Route 6 Express, SLO Tripper, and Highland Tripper services
•Benefit: Aligns with the City’s goal of restoring transit services to pre-pandemic levels
•Impact: Estimated to increase operating cost by $41,400 a year and requires one additional
transit vehicle
20
Public Outreach and Engagement
October 23 - 27 2023 – Onboard Surveys. A total of 427 survey responses were received.
November 8, 2023 –In-person Stakeholder Workshop held at the Ludwick Community Center
November 14 – December 12, 2023 - Community (online) Surveys. A total of 254 survey
responses were received.
January 18, 2024 – Virtual Stakeholder Workshop
March 13, 2024 – 1st Joint MTC & RTAC meeting to present the results from Working Papers 1,
2, and 3 and to solicit feedback as to which service alternatives should be analyzed in Working
Paper 4.
June 5, 2024 – 2nd Joint MTC & RTAC meeting was held on June 5, 2024, to present and solicit
feedback on the initial service alternatives analysis.
June 5 - 6, 2024 – Community Workshops to present and receive feedback from the public on
the initial service alternatives analysis.
21
Study Session Feedback
1.Does Council agree with LSC and Staff’s preliminary service alternative
recommendations and want to see them in the draft plan?
2.Does Council support the concept of addressing the need for more transit vehicles by
keeping existing in-service buses that would have normally been removed from the
inventory?
3.Does Council want to pursue a Microtransit pilot program as part of the SRTP update? If
so, should the program overlay Microtransit over the entire service area or over specific
route(s)?
4.With Cal Poly moving to a semester system in Fall 2026, SLO Transit could operate
academic service year-round since Cal Poly. Would Council like to include in the draft
plan implementation of any service changes to coincide with Cal Poly transition to a
semester system?
22
Next Steps
1.July 2024 – Incorporate Council’s Feedback into Working Paper 4
2.August 2024
•Draft Working Paper 5 – Operating Budget and Financial Projection
3.September 2024
•Draft Working Paper 6 – Capital Improvement Plans
•3rd Joint MTC & RTAC Meeting
4.November 2024 – Present draft Administrative Plan
5.January 2025 – Adoption of Final Short-Range Transit Plan
23
Recommendation
Receive a presentation on the progress of SLO Transit’s
Short-Range Transit Plan update, including service
alternatives analysis, provide direction regarding which
service alternatives to incorporate into the plan update, and
provide direction to staff to return in fall 2024 with a draft
plan for Council’s review.
24
25
26
SLO Tripper
6 ExpressHighland
Tripper