Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/25/2025 Item 6a, Luo Yiming Luo < To:E-mail Council Website Subject:CC Public comment - 2/25/2025 Item 6a Attachments:SRTP CPU Response 2-25-2025.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello council, I am writing today on behalf of Cal Poly Urbanists, a student organization focused on human-centered urban design at Cal Poly, in support of the draft SRTP. Please see the attached letter. Thank you, Yiming 1 Cal Poly Urbanists City & Regional Planning, 1 Grand Ave, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 February 25, 2025 Mayor Stewart, Councilmembers, City Manager McDonald: Cal Poly Urbanists is a student club at Cal Poly that focuses on advocating for human-centered urban design. We strongly support the adoption of the Short-Range Transit Plan, with minor changes, to keep SLO in motion. The council should also consider factors such as increased student enrollment, on-campus housing development, and the volatility of federal funds in the upcoming Financial Plan. This plan has been shown to be efficient and effective at meeting the transportation needs of students. SLO Transit has already partially implemented the first service recommendation - reinstating the 6X - to resounding success. In the first seven weeks of its implementation from September 19 to October 31, the 6X carried an average of 333 passengers during its 3 hours and 20 minutes from 6pm to 9:20pm, serving 100 passenger-trips per hour1. During the first four weeks of this year from January 9 to January 30, the 6X carried a less impressive average of 275.5 passengers, with a low of 226 passengers on January 30 (see the picture to the right)2. Even with comparatively low numbers, that trip still served 67.8 passenger-trips per hour, besting the pre-pandemic record of the Laguna Tripper at 38 passenger-trips per hour, and the 16.7 passenger-trips per hour systemwide. Comparing regular, fixed bus lines with special event lines like the Laguna Tripper may not be entirely appropriate, but the reaction to the restoration of the 6X suggests that more frequent service to campus would be well-received. 2 Email from Alex Fuchs and Jesse Stanley, February 4, 2025. Picture credit to CPU member Frederick Yung. 1 Mass Transportation Committee—November 13, 2024. As Cal Poly doubles its beds on campus by 2035 while increasing its parking by only 2%, the campus will become much denser and will require more bus service. Providing this service benefits both the town and the gown - the more students that can ride the bus, the fewer cars are on the road, improving traffic for everyone. More frequent service could also help SLO Transit leverage higher subsidies for service from Cal Poly. Finally, increased use of alternative transportation furthers both the city’s general plan and the campus’ master plan. Even just in the short term, it will be interesting to see how the completion of the Kennedy Library renovation will affect bus travel patterns. One of our members commented on the proposed 2 route, saying that it should serve campus so that students could have a one-seat, no-transfer Target run. Is that a possible alternative to consider? There is some information that falls outside of the scope of the SRTP, but could be useful to know to plan for the short-term. For example, while the SRTP acknowledges ongoing campus housing development, it would be beneficial to address potential future stop locations on Cal Poly’s campus. Given continued construction through 2030, how would stops be added between the existing Kennedy Library and PAC stops? Would SLO Transit discontinue service through campus and have those two stops act as turnarounds? How would the agency maintain communication with the university to support ridership during construction? And more concerningly, how could SLO Transit deal with a cut to federal funds? The budget assumes continued FTA funding at the current formula, which may be unstable. Has SLO Transit received all ARPA funds that it was granted? How volatile is the FTA 5307 funding given the current federal administration? How likely is a complete federal funds freeze, and should council direct staff to prepare a core/emergency service alternative outside the SRTP to ensure continuous service? And in that case, would there be any barriers that stop council from subsidizing SLO Transit with money from the general funds? Section 2 of the ‘23 to ‘25 Financial Plan lays out user fee cost recovery goals for the city. Given that: - “the public at large benefits from the service even if they are not users”3, - the service is dissimilar to services provided in the private sector4, - and that there is no intent to limit the use of the service5, could general fund money be allocated in the ‘25-’27 plan to SLO Transit? Regarding the content of the report, the city should re-upload the working papers to the “Studies and Reports” section of the SLO Transit website and also correct some minor typographical errors, such as correcting the spelling of “San Luis Obispo” and “Morro Bay” on table 9 on page 51 from “San Luis Obipo” and “Morro Beach”, and replacing “California Polytechnic University” with “California Polytechnic State University” on page 53. Otherwise, the council should adopt the plan as-is and consider direct local subsidies to SLO Transit in the ‘25-’27 Financial Plan. Sincerely, Yiming Luo Outreach Coordinator 5 Ibid. 4 Financial Plan, p. 508 3 Multari, M. (2017). Guide to local government finance in California (Second edition.). Solano Press Books. p. 62