HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-2025 MTC Agenda Packet
Mass Transportation Committee
AGENDA
Wednesday, May 14, 2025, 2:30 p.m.
Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
The Mass Transportation Committee holds in-person meetings. Zoom participation will not be
supported. Attendees of City Council or Advisory Body meetings are eligible to receive one hour of
complimentary parking; restrictions apply, visit Parking for Public Meetings for more details.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting):
Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401.
Email - Submit Public Comments via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. In the body of your
email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not
be read aloud during the meeting.
Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the
agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be
limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.
*All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received
after the deadline ma not be processed until the following day.
Public Comment during the meeting:
Meetings are held in-person. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be
present at the meeting location.
Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy,
Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire
to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation must provide display-ready
material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's
Office at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7114.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Figueroa will call the Regular Meeting of the Mass Transportation
Committee to order.
2.OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW MTC MEMBERS 5
City Clerk Teresa Purrington will administer the Oath of Office to newly
appointed Mass Transportation Committee Members Michaela Crampton and
Delany Ginn. (Attachment A)
3.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda.
Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and
address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this
time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
4.CONSENT
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-
controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may
request the Mass Transportation Committee pull an item for discussion. The
public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three-minute time limit.
4.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - MARCH 12, 2025, MASS
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
11
Recommendation:
To approve the Mass Transportation Committee Minutes of March 12,
2025. (Attachment B)
5.BUSINESS ITEMS
5.a PRESENTATION ON ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2024
HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESULTS
15
Presenter: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
(Attachment C)
6.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
6.a SLO TRANSIT UPDATE 59
Mobility Services Business Manager Alex Fuchs will provide an update
on the following:
Adoption of the Short-Range Transit Plan and approval of fare
rates
•
Open-loop payment project implementation•
Summer Youth Ride Free•
Upcoming Community Engagement Events•
Recommendation:
Receive Information
7.ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Mass Transportation Committee meeting is
scheduled for July 9, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at City
Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available -- see the Clerk
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible
to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who
requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting
should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114 at least
48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Service Complaints: Complaints regarding bus service or routes are to be
directed to the customer service line at (805) 594-8090. Reports of
complaints/commendations are available to the public upon request.
Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Mass Transportation
Committee are available for public inspection on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-
minutes. Meeting recordings may be found on the City’s website:
https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=60984
Department: City Clerk
Cost Center: 1021
For Agenda of: 4/1/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Megan Wilbanks, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: 2025 ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY BODIES
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Council Liaison Subcommittees, make appointments to the City
of San Luis Obispo's (City) advisory bodies as set forth below and continue to recruit for
any unfilled vacant positions.
POLICY CONTEXT
The Advisory Body Handbook outlines the recruitment procedures, membership
requirements, and term limits for City advisory bodies. Also contained in the Advisory
Body Handbook are the bylaws for all advisory bodies, some of which include additional
membership requirements. Additionally, the City Council Policies and Procedures
Manual, describes the “Appointment Procedure” and “Process” for Advisory Body
appointments. Recruitment and appointment recommendations were performed in
conformance with all recruitment procedures, processes, and bylaws found in these
resources.
California Government Code Section 54972, Local Appointments List (Maddy Act)
requires that on or before December 31st of each year, each legislative body shall prepare
an appointments list for their boards, commissions, and committees whose members
serve at the pleasure of the legislative body. This obligation was met and is on-going.
DISCUSSION
The City has a long history of involving its residents and community members in the
business of City government. Holding a position on an advisory body provides an
opportunity for those interested to participate in the governing of their community under
guidelines and procedures established by Council. The City recruits annually to fill
scheduled vacancies, making new appointments each March to fill terms that typically
commence on April 1st of each year. Recruitment for unscheduled vacancies is done as
needed, but is consolidated with the annual recruitment whenever possible.
Attachment A
Page 5 of 62
This year, the City recruited to fill 33 scheduled and unscheduled citizen Advisory Body
positions for the annual recruitment effort. The recruitment was conducted between
November 18, 2024, and January 26, 2025, and a total of 104 applications were received.
Council Liaison Subcommittees reviewed applications and conducted interviews between
February and March of 2025. The following recommendations will fill 32 positions on the
Advisory Bodies. Recruitment for the remaining vacancy continues as noted.
Note that no vacancies or term conclusions currently exist for the Area Authority on
Ageing or Citizens’ Transportation Advisory Committee. Therefore, no recruitment was
held for these Advisory Bodies during this annual recruitment.
Council Liaison Subcommittee Recommendations
Active Transportation Committee
Appoint Russell Mills and Francine Levin to four-year terms commencing April 1, 2025,
and expiring March 31, 2029. Additionally, appoint Tyler Coari to assume an unscheduled
vacancy with a term expiring March 31, 2027.
Administrative Review Board
Appoint Alex Karlin to a three-year term commencing April 1, 2025, and expiring March
31, 2028. Note, one position on this 3-member Board remains vacant.
Architectural Review Commission
Appoint Kyle Bell and Mick Atkins to four-year terms commencing April 1, 2025, and
expiring March 31, 2029.
Citizens’ Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission
Appoint Anthony Bozzano and Trent Johnson to three-year terms commencing July 1,
2025, and expiring June 30, 2028.
Construction Board of Appeals
Appoint Gresham Eckrich, Aisling Burke, Craig Smith, and Denise Martinez to four-year
terms commencing April 1, 2025, and expiring March 31, 2029. Aisling Burke and Craig
Smith will serve as the Physically Disabled Community Representatives.
Cultural Heritage Committee
Appoint Sabin Gray and David Blakely to four-year terms commencing April 1, 2025, and
expiring March 31, 2029.
Housing Authority Board
Appoint Charles Crotser as the At-Large Representative to a four-year term commencing
April 1, 2025, and expiring March 31, 2029. Additionally, appoint Geraldine Clemens as
the Senior Tenant Representative and Nancy Welsh as the Tenant Representative, both
to two-year terms commencing April 1, 2025, and expiring March 31, 2027.
Attachment A
Page 6 of 62
Human Relations Commission
Appoint Esmerelda Parker to a four-year term commencing April 1, 2025, and expiring
March 31, 2029.
Investment Oversight Committee
Appoint Anni Wang to a four-year term commencing April 1, 2025, and expiring March
31, 2029.
Mass Transportation Committee
Appoint Michaela Crampton as the Technical Planning Representative to a four-year term
commencing April 1, 2025, and expiring March 31, 2029. Additionally, appoint Delaney
Ginn as the Cal Poly ASI Representative to assume a two-year term, expiring March 31,
2027.
Personnel Board
Appoint Calvin Stevens and Jill LeMieux to four-year terms commencing April 1, 2025,
and expiring March 31, 2029.
Planning Commission
Appoint Justin Cooley and Dave Houghton to four-year terms commencing April 1, 2025,
and expiring March 31, 2029.
Promotional Coordinating Committee
Appoint Robin Wolf to a four-year term commencing April 1, 2025, and expiring March
31, 2029. Additionally, appoint Dan Fredman to assume an unscheduled vacancy with a
term expiring March 31, 2026.
Parks and Recreation Commission
Appoint Desire Lance to a four-year term commencing April 1, 2025, and expiring March
31, 2029.
Tourism Business Improvement District Board
Appoint Prashant Patel and Dante Specchierla to four-year terms commencing April 1,
2025, and expiring March 31, 2029. Additionally, appoint Christine Nelson to assume an
unscheduled vacancy with a term expiring March 31, 2027.
Tree Committee
Appoint Daniel Canella, Emily Rosten, and Dan Shinn to four-year terms commencing
April 1, 2025, and expiring March 31, 2029.
Zone 9 Advisory Committee
Appoint Wyatt Banker-Hix to a four-year term as the Staff Alternate, commencing April 1,
2025, and expiring March 31, 2029.
Attachment A
Page 7 of 62
Applications of those who were unsuccessful in this process will be kept on file for the
next full year and they will be notified of any subsequent vacancies. However,
advertisement of any unscheduled vacancy will be made in accordance with statutory
requirements and all applicants will be considered for the vacancy.
Public Engagement
Notices that the City was accepting applications for the above listed Advisory Bodies were
placed on the City’s website and “e-notification” service, listed in the annual Local
Appointments List (Maddy Act Notice – GC 54972) on the City Website and City
Information kiosk, and distributed via City social media outlets.
CONCURRENCE
As presented in the recommendations, the various City Council sub-committees for the
Advisory Bodies are in concurrence with the stated recommendations along with the City
Clerk’s office, who coordinated and organized the process.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in
this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines
Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total N/A N/A N/A N/A
There is no fiscal impact for the appointment of the above Advisory Body members.
Administration of the process is considered in the City Clerk’s annual budget and
compensation for Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission
(PC) is included in the adopted budget for the Community Development Department.
Attachment A
Page 8 of 62
ALTERNATIVES
Council could make changes to the recommended appointments or direct staff to
re-open recruitment for additional candidates.
ATTACHMENTS
All applications are available for public review by request in the Office of the City Clerk,
which can be reached at (805) 781-7114 or cityclerk@slocity.org.
Attachment A
Page 9 of 62
Page 10 of 62
Mass Transportation Committee Minutes
March 12, 2025, 2:30 p.m.
Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Mass Transportation
Committee Members
Present:
Member Matthew Duffy (Disability Community Rep), Member
Hans Hershberger (Business Rep), Member Robin Kisinger
(Senior Rep), Chair David Figueroa (At-Large Rep)
MTC Members Absent: Member Trevor Freeman (Technical Rep), Member Audrey Lariz
(Alternate), Vice Chair Marlene Cramer (Cal Poly Rep)
ASI Student Rep position vacant
City Staff Present: Mobility Services Business Manager Alexander Fuchs, Transit
Coordinator Jesse Stanley, Recording Secretary Melody Monroe
_____________________________________________________________________
1.CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Mass Transportation Committee was
called to order on March 12, 2025, at 2:32 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Figueroa.
2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment--
3.CONSENT
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 2025, MASS
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion By Member Kisinger
Second By Member Hershberger
To approve the Mass Transportation Committee Minutes of January 8,
2025.
Attachment B
Page 11 of 62
Ayes (4): Member Duffy, Member Hershberger, Member Kisinger, and
Chair Figueroa
Absent (3): Member Freeman, Member Lariz, and Vice Chair Cramer
CARRIED (4 to 0)
4.BUSINESS ITEMS
4.a K-12 DISCOUNT PASS PROGRAM ADOPTION
Mobility Services Business Manager Alex Fuchs presented the report and
responded to committee inquiries.
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment--
Motion By Member Hershberger
Second By Member Duffy
Recommend that the City Council Adopt a Resolution Formalizing the K-
12 Discount Pass Program
Ayes (4): Member Duffy, Member Hershberger, Member Kisinger, and
Chair Figueroa
Absent (3): Member Freeman, Member Lariz, and Vice Chair Cramer
CARRIED (4 to 0)
5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a SLO TRANSIT UPDATE
Mobility Services Business Manager Alex Fuchs provided updates on the
following:
•Council's Draft SRTP review
•Ridership Data - Fiscal Year 2024 to Fiscal Year 2025 Comparison
•Ridership Data - 6 Express - September 2024 - February 2025
•Marketing and Promotional Activities
Attachment B
Page 12 of 62
6.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Mass
Transportation Committee is scheduled for May 14, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. in the
Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
_________________________
APPROVED BY MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: XX/XX/202X
Attachment B
Page 13 of 62
Page 14 of 62
City of San Luis Obispo
Active Transportation Plan
2024 Household Survey Results
Prepared by:
Becca Carsel, M.S.
Carsel Consulting Group
October, 2024
Attachment C
Page 15 of 62
Table of Contents
Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 2
Results Summary .................................................................................................................... 3
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 8
Detailed Charts ..................................................................................................................... 10
Attachment C
Page 16 of 62
Methodology
Postcards were sent to randomly selected addresses within the City of San Luis Obispo.
After invalid addresses were scrubbed, 6,831 postcards were mailed. This number was
selected to try to achieve a target number of responses of at least 385, the sample size
calculated for the City population of 47,063 (2020 Census) at a 95% confidence level with a
5% margin of error.
Recipients were invited to complete the online survey, with a link and QR code provided. A
total of 516 individual responses were received after accounting for test data. The English
version of the survey received 545 total visits, and the Spanish version of the survey
received 29 total visits. For a substantial number of responses, there was no data in the
transportation question section; only the demographic section had been completed (31
English, 1 Spanish).
Number of survey responses at each stage of data cleaning
Raw
responses
Test
responses -
removed
Cleaned
responses,
no testers
Responses
missing all
transp. data -
removed
Cleaned
responses
Responses
with mode
data <90%
or >110% -
removed
Cleaned
responses
for mode
data
English 518 7 511 31 480 54 426
Spanish 8 3 5 1 4 0 4
Total 526 10 516 32 484 54 430
The total response rate was 7.7% (6,831 surveys, 526 total responses). After data cleaning,
484 responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For “percentage of all trips by
mode” data, responses were expected to total 100%. Any responses totaling less than 90%
or more than 110% were removed, resulting in 430 responses being analyzed for “all trips
by mode” questions. Confidence intervals were also generated for the top three travel
mode responses.
Attachment C
Page 17 of 62
Results Summary
Demographics
Respondents to the ATP Household Survey 2024 had similar demographics to that of the
City as a whole for ethnicity and race (as far as could be determined due to differences in
how the question was asked). For sex/gender, somewhat more men than women
responded to the survey. There were few responses by lower-income and younger
residents (frequently the same people).
SLO City Resident Ages –
Census (ACS 5-year 2022)
SLO City Resident
Ages – Census:
% within 18+ age
groups
ATP Household
Survey 2024
0-17 10.7% N/A (not targeted) 0.8%
18-24 39.1% 43.7% 5.2%
25-64 36.8% 41.2% 60.2%
65+ 13.5% 15.1% 33.9%
SLO City Resident Gender –
Census (ACS 5-year 2022)
ATP Household
Survey 2024
Male 51% 53%
Female 49% 45%
Trans/Non-
Binary* Not collected 2%
* Note that this question was asked on the ATP survey as an open-ended question.
SLO City Resident Ethnicity –
Census (ACS 5-year 2022)
ATP Household
Survey 2024
Hispanic 18.5% 7.4%
Not Hispanic 81.5% 79.1%
No response N/A 13.4%
SLO City Resident Race –
Census (ACS 5-year 2022)
ATP Household
Survey 2024*
Asian 5.5% 5.2%
Black 1.3% 0.4%
Native American 0.5% 1.5%
Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.4%
White 79.1% 79.5%
Other 3.2% n/a
2+ races 10.3% n/a
Prefer not to answer n/a 16.0%
* Note that ATP survey categories total over 100% because respondents could select all that apply.
Attachment C
Page 18 of 62
SLO City Resident Income –
Census (ACS 5-year 2022)
ATP Household
Survey 2024
$0-$49,999 41.4% 10.8%
$50,000-$99,999 22.0% 17.8%
$100,000-$149,999 15.5% 23.7%
$150,000+ 21.0% 26.7%
SLO City Resident Employment Status –
ATP Household Survey 2024*
Employed 54.7%
Not employed 1.5%
Retired 34.4%
Employed and student 3.0%
Student 2.6%
Prefer not to answer 3.8%
* Note that Census employment status is not reported because it is not comparable to the ATP
survey question.
Transportation Responses Summary
Following are highlights from the transportation responses. Please see page 10 for detailed
charts.
Bicycle Mode
•The average percentage of trips taken by bicycle mode was 10.7%. When weighted
for age, the average was 16.1%. (Note that the age weighting should be used with
caution due to the small sample size of 20 surveys from respondents ages 18-24.)
•Younger residents ages 18-24 reported the most bicycle trips (23.5% of all trips)
while seniors ages 65 and older reported the fewest bicycle trips (5.1% of all trips).
Men were twice as likely as women to bicycle.
•Few bicycle riders considered themselves to be “Dedicated & Fearless” (9%) – most
were split between “Enthusiastic & Confident” (26%) and “Interested but Concerned”
(27%). The largest cluster of respondents said they were not a rider (40%) – this was
up from 30% in 2019 (see Recommendations section for discussion of sampling
issues).
•The top reasons selected for difficulty bicycling were not liking to bike in heavy
traffic (39%) and drivers speeding or too aggressive (38%).
•The most important bicycle improvements to respondents were more trails and
paths (24%).
Attachment C
Page 19 of 62
Walking Mode
•The average percentage of trips taken by walking mode was 15.3%. When weighted
for age, the average was 17.5%. (Note that the age weighting should be used with
caution due to the small sample size of 20 surveys from respondents ages 18-24.)
•Only small differences were noted related to age for average percentage of trips
talking by walking. Women were slightly more likely than men to walk.
•The top reason selected for difficulty walking was that it takes too long (33%).
•The most important pedestrian improvement to respondents was maintaining and
fixing existing sidewalks (27%).
Driving Mode
•The average percentage of trips taken by driving alone mode was 61.6%. When
weighted for age, the average was 53.2%. (Note that the age weighting should be
used with caution due to the small sample size of 20 surveys from respondents ages
18-24.) Carpool trips were taken 7.8% of the time.
•Younger residents ages 18-24 reported the fewest drive alone trips (42.5% of all
trips) while seniors ages 65 and older reported the most drive alone trips (67%).
Women were slightly more likely than men to drive alone.
•The average number of cars owned was 1.9.
•Respondents were most willing to consider replacing car trips with improved bus
service (30%) and more convenient transit stops (20%).
Other Modes
•The average percentage of trips taken by bus was 1.6%. Other trips, including ride
ailing and motorcycle, were 2.9% of all trips.
Progress Toward Mode Split Objectives
2024 survey respondents report increased walking compared to 2019, but reduced
bicycling. There was no change in single-occupancy vehicle use.
Mode 2030 Goal 2024 Household Survey 2019 Household Survey
Walking 12% 15.3% 11%
Bicycle 20% 10.7% 16%
Transit 7% 1.6% 2%
Single-Occupancy
Vehicle
50% 61.6% 61%
Carpool and Other 11% 10.7% 10%
Attachment C
Page 20 of 62
Progress Toward Demographic Representation
One goal of the Active Transportation Plan is to achieve the same demographic
representation of those using active transportation models as those using single occupancy
motor vehicles. Improvements in walking and bicycle representation among females were
seen in 2024 compared to 2019.
2024 Household
Survey
2019 Household
Survey
Mode Female Male Female Male
Bike 34% 66% 30% 69%
Walk 53% 47% 41% 58%
Drive Alone 53% 47% 51% 49%
While the Active Transportation Plan does not monitor respondents with non-binary and
transgender gender identities, in 2024 there were eight respondents who stated an identity
other than male or female, 1.7% of the survey sample (note that the gender question was
asked in an open-ended, write-in format).
Travel Mode Confidence Intervals
The confidence interval calculates the range in which the survey sample likely represents
the population as a whole. Confidence intervals allow generalization of sample data to an
entire population. Confidence intervals for the top travel modes are listed below. However,
because confidence intervals assume random sampling and only considers sample size as
a variable, they should be used with extreme caution in this situation because the survey
sample does not accurately represent the population of San Luis Obispo. The data is known
to heavily skew toward older residents, with very few responses from younger residents.
Confidence Interval: Drive Alone Mode
Sample mean: 61.6%
95% CI [.584, .647]
This means that if the sample were representative of the population, we would be 95% certain that
the average percentage of drive alone trips taken by SLO City residents is between 58.4% and 64.7%.
Confidence Interval: Bicycle Mode
Sample mean: 10.7%
95% CI [.086, .128].
This means that if the sample were representative of the population, we would be 95% certain that
the average percentage of bicycle trips taken by SLO City residents is between 8.6% and 12.8%.
Attachment C
Page 21 of 62
Confidence Interval: Walk Mode
Sample mean: 15.3%
95% CI [.132, .173].
This means that if the sample were representative of the population, we would be 95% certain that
the average percentage of walking trips taken by SLO City residents is between 13.2% and 17.4%.
Attachment C
Page 22 of 62
Recommendations
Data Utilization
While it is not feasible for the ATP Household Survey to be conducted in a true random-
sample format, the results can still inform planning for strategies to increase active
transportation use. One strategy to consider is that of reviewing transportation mode use
by age group and targeting strategies to specific age groups based on their transportation
needs and life goals.
For example, while parents of young children may need to drive more often, middle-aged
adults may have fitness goals that align with bicycle and walking objectives. Seniors may
have healthy aging goals that include walking, or transportation needs that would be best
served by transit and carpools. Families could be encouraged to use child-safe bike trails to
introduce bicycling to the next generation.
Future ATP Household Surveys
Several issues arose during the administration and analysis of the survey that should be
considered when planning the next survey wave.
Representative sample: The survey sample is not representative of the demographics of
the City, particularly with regard to age. Respondents are overwhelmingly older than the
City population as a whole. This likely skews the mode share results toward driving alone
and away from bicycling and walking. Additionally, the 2024 survey may have been taken
more frequently by residents who are not supportive of the City’s new bike lanes. This
makes sense when considering that a resident needs to read the postcard and then choose
to access the online survey, so those with the strongest opinions are most likely to
respond.
In the future, consider quotas by age range and oversampling of 18-24-year-olds to achieve
accurate proportions of each age group. Also consider additional ways to solicit responses
to the survey, as postcards are likely biased toward older respondents.
Overall, to achieve a more representative sample for demographics including age, income,
and gender, consider additional recruitment of participants in specific venues such as
lower-income schools, apartment complexes, and events targeted to City residents that
would be likely to improve response rates for lower-income, younger, and female
residents.
Attachment C
Page 23 of 62
OpenGov platform: The OpenGov survey platform has several flaws that limited online
survey functionality, reduced the number of respondents and usable surveys, and made
data analysis difficult. These include:
1)No Spanish capability. While a Spanish version of the survey was created and
distributed by inserting Spanish survey questions into the online survey, the survey
platform did not have a way to switch the labels on the headers and navigation
buttons from English to Spanish. This may have contributed to the Spanish survey
having a low response rate, with 73% of site visitors failing to respond (29 visitors, 5
responses). The English version had only 6% of site visitors fail to respond (545
visitors, 511 responses). According to Census ACS 2022 data, 10% of the City’s
population speaks Spanish at home. For a survey with 511 total responses, we
would hope to have 51 of those be in Spanish rather than 5.
2)No capability for a question to total 100%. The mode split question, which asks what
percentage of the time the respondent uses each transportation mode, needed
respondents to total their response at 100%. While this capability exists within
survey software and was used for the 2019 survey via SurveyMonkey, it did not exist
for OpenGov. As a result, 11% of surveys had to be removed from analysis because
they did not total close to 100% (within 10%).
3)Limited data download functionality. Data analysis took longer than expected
because when data was exported into an Excel file, the responses for each question
that had multiple response options (“select all that apply” and mode share) were
placed into a single cell, precluding analysis until they could be separated into
individual cells. Many comments were also very difficult to read because certain
characters, including apostrophes and accents, downloaded as a series of
characters. Regular survey software is able to provide both numerical and text data
in useable formats for analysis. OpenGov also does not generate charts for each
survey question, resulting in higher data analysis costs.
It is recommended that a different survey platform be used to increase data accuracy, limit
unusable surveys, reduce data analysis time and cost, and increase accessibility by
Spanish-speaking residents.
Attachment C
Page 24 of 62
Detailed Charts
For your work and school trips in the last week (not counting taking children to
school), how many days did you use the following transportation options?
Percent of Respondents Selecting Each Number of Days, by Mode
0%20%40%60%80%100%
I work/study from home
Other
Motorcycle
Ride hailing
Carpool/Vanpool
Bus
Walk
Bicycle
Drive alone
0 21 3 4 5+
Attachment C
Page 25 of 62
Mode
Number of Days Using Transportation Mode
Total
Average
Days 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drive alone 139 33 39 60 36 176 483 2.72
29.0% 6.8% 8.1% 12.4% 7.5% 36.4% 100%
Bicycle 373 28 24 11 21 26 483 0.67
77.2% 5.8% 5.0% 2.3% 4.3% 5.4% 100%
Walk 325 43 25 24 11 54 482 0.99
67.4% 8.9% 5.2% 5.0% 2.3% 11.2% 100%
Bus 463 6 3 1 2 6 481 0.11
96.3% 1.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.4% 1.2% 100%
Carpool/Vanpool 429 14 15 9 8 7 482 0.29
89.0% 2.9% 3.1% 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 100%
Ride hailing 466 11 3 1 0 0 481 0.04
96.9% 2.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
Motorcycle 470 6 3 2 0 1 482 0.05
97.5% 1.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 100%
Other 472 4 2 0 1 2 481 0.05
98.1% 0.8% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 100%
I work/study
from home 348 24 22 14 12 61 481 0.96
Total 72.3% 5.0% 4.6% 2.9% 2.5% 12.7% 100%
Attachment C
Page 26 of 62
For all trips in the last week, estimate the percentage of trips you took using the
following modes.
Average Trips by Mode
Mode
Average Percentage
of Trips Taken
Drive Alone 61.6%
Carpool/Vanpool 7.8%
Ride Hailing 0.6%
Bus 1.6%
Bicycle 10.7%
Walk 15.3%
Motorcycle 0.5%
Other 1.8%
61.6%
7.8%
0.6%
1.6%
10.7%
15.3%
0.5%
1.8%
Drive Alone
Carpool/Vanpool
Ride Hailing
Bus
Bicycle
Walk
Motorcycle
Other
Attachment C
Page 27 of 62
Which of the following rider types best describes you?
Rider Type Count Percent
Dedicated & Fearless 41 8.6%
Enthusiastic & Confident 122 25.6%
Interested but Concerned 129 27.1%
Not a Rider 184 38.7%
Total 476 100.0%
9%
26%
27%
39%
Dedicated & Fearless
Enthusiastic & Confident
Interested but Concerned
Not a Rider
Attachment C
Page 28 of 62
It is difficult for me to bike in town more often because… (select all that apply)
Reason Count Percent
Drivers are speeding or are too aggressive 167 38%
There are no showers or lockers at my destination 25 6%
I don't want to wear a helmet 16 4%
Gaps in the bicycle network make it difficult to travel safely 124 28%
There aren't enough bicycle lanes 77 18%
I don't like to bike in heavy traffic 171 39%
There isn't enough secure bike parking 64 15%
I can't carry all my stuff 114 26%
I am not in good health to bike 45 10%
Bike lanes/paths are poorly maintained 52 12%
The streets are too dark at night 47 11%
It takes too long 52 12%
Biking isn't safe for my children 45 10%
I can’t afford to or I don’t know how to repair my bike 8 2%
I don't have a bike 87 20%
The weather isn’t good for biking 17 4%
Other concerns 82 19%
Count of respondents to any difficulty 436
38%
6%
4%
28%
18%
39%
15%
26%
10%
12%
11%
12%
10%
2%
20%
4%
19%
Drivers are speeding or are too aggressive
There are no showers or lockers at my…
I don't want to wear a helmet
Gaps in the bicycle network make it difficult…
There aren't enough bicycle lanes
I don't like to bike in heavy traffic
There isn't enough secure bike parking
I can't carry all my stuff
I am not in good health to bike
Bike lanes/paths are poorly maintained
The streets are too dark at night
It takes too long
Biking isn't safe for my children
I can’t afford to or I don’t know how to repair …
I don't have a bike
The weather isn’t good for biking
Other concerns
Attachment C
Page 29 of 62
Which of the following bicycling improvements is most important to you?
Improvement Count Percent
Connecting gaps in the bicycle network 64 13.6%
Improved wayfinding and signs 11 2.3%
More bike lanes 49 10.4%
More protected bicycle crossings 23 4.9%
More shared facilities (reminders for cars and bikes
to share the road) 9 1.9%
More trails and paths 114 24.3%
None of these; I don't ride 125 26.6%
Protected on-street bikeways 75 16.0%
Total 470 100.0%
14%
2%
10%
5%
2%
24%
27%
16%
Connecting gaps in the bicycle network
Improved wayfinding and signs
More bike lanes
More protected bicycle crossings
More shared facilities (reminders for cars
and bikes to share the road)
More trails and paths
None of these; I don't ride
Protected on-street bikeways
Attachment C
Page 30 of 62
It is difficult for me to walk in town more often because… (select all that apply)
Reason Count Percent
Drivers are speeding or are too aggressive 89 22.9%
Sidewalks are in poor condition 80 20.6%
Sidewalks are too narrow 33 8.5%
There aren't enough safe crossings 70 18.0%
There are no sidewalks during some parts of my trip 79 20.3%
There isn’t enough tree shade 86 22.1%
Drivers don't watch out for me 91 23.4%
Traffic is too noisy 44 11.3%
I don't feel safe walking during the day 12 3.1%
I don't feel safe walking at night 99 25.4%
I am not in good health to walk 32 8.2%
It takes too long 127 32.6%
Other concerns 51 13.1%
Count of respondents to any difficulty 389
23%
21%
8%
18%
20%
22%
23%
11%
3%
25%
8%
33%
13%
Drivers are speeding or are too aggressive
Sidewalks are in poor condition
Sidewalks are too narrow
There aren't enough safe crossings
There are no sidewalks during some…
There isn’t enough tree shade
Drivers don't watch out for me
Traffic is too noisy
I don't feel safe walking during the day
I don't feel safe walking at night
I am not in good health to walk
It takes too long
Other concerns
Attachment C
Page 31 of 62
Which of the following pedestrian improvements is most important to you?
Improvement Count Percent
Better street lighting 82 17.3%
Completing sidewalks 64 13.5%
Improving crossings at busy intersections 79 16.7%
Maintaining/fixing existing sidewalks 127 26.9%
More curb ramps 23 4.9%
More directional signs/wayfinding 2 0.4%
None of these 59 12.5%
Providing more separation from traffic 37 7.8%
Total 473 100.0%
17%
14%
17%
27%
5%
0%
12%
8%
Better street lighting
Completing sidewalks
Improving crossings at busy intersections
Maintaining/fixing existing sidewalks
More curb ramps
More directional signs/wayfinding
None of these
Providing more separation from traffic
Attachment C
Page 32 of 62
How many automobiles do you have in your household?
Number of cars Count Percent
0 13 2.8%
1 153 32.9%
2 209 44.9%
3 63 13.5%
4 22 4.7%
5+ 5 1.1%
Total 465 100%
3%
33%
45%
14%
5%
1%
0
1
2
3
4
5+
Attachment C
Page 33 of 62
Would you consider replacing some automobile trips with the following shared
transportation services?
Shared Transportation Yes No Total
Bike Share (short-term rentals) 15.1% 84.9% 100.0%
73 411 484
Scooter Share (short-term rentals) 11.2% 88.8% 100.0%
54 430 484
Car Share (short-term rentals) 7.2% 92.8% 100.0%
35 449 484
Improved Bus Service (more
frequently)
30.2% 69.8% 100.0%
146 338 484
Convenient Transit Stops (closer) 20.0% 80.0% 100.0%
97 387 484
15%
11%
7%
30%
20%
Bike Share (short-term rentals)
Scooter Share (short-term rentals)
Car Share (short-term rentals)
Improved Bus Service (more frequently)
Convenient Transit Stops (closer)
Attachment C
Page 34 of 62
Do you have any additional comments about bicycling, walking, or shared
transportation in San Luis Obispo?
• Bus stop closures are frequent and inconvenient and not well communicated. SLO transit
should consider temporary stops when routes are detoured rather than full closures and
should do a better job of communicating closure status, duration, and detour info
• shrink the roads to make walking more appealing/safe
• Separation of bikes paths and sidewalks from roads would make it a lot safer; in addition,
car drivers won't get angry about bikers on the road.
• buses need to be more frequent, there are large gaps between bus arrivals at stops.
• I would really like to see more bus frequency, at least every half an hour, and every 15 -20
minutes ideally. I would also like to see more protected bike lanes and intersections.
However, I think that the city is moving in the right direction despite all t he constraints and
factors such as funding.
• Cycling - Automobiles drive too fast and make it scary to bike in any other area except
downtown.
• I walk everywhere, I can’t afford a car. I like walking, but there isn’t enough support for
walkers. we need better sidewalks, places to rest, shade, and a reliable bus schedule
• Bus Service: The Damon Garcia bus stop on Route 1B should be moved closer to Industrial
Way, near SESLOC. A bus stop near the SLO Food Bank would be nice. Right now only rich
people driving their $70,000 pickup trucks can easily access the Food Bank. Disab led people
living in poverty? The Food Bank is hard to get to by bus..
• I ride the bus very often. More people would ride the bus if the bus schedules on the city bus
site were up to date, and if there were buses that were shuttles -- went directly to and from
popular shopping centers from the transit center.
• The new bicycle paths along some of the narrow streets make it hard to even want to drive
into SLO.
• Too many bike lanes in town. Total waste of money as they’re rarely used.
• Lower the parking rates!!!
• We need more protected biking/walking paths that connect to destinations
• the timing of traiffc lights is dreadful. I often stop at every light on what should be a major
street that supports traiffc lfow rather than impedes it. I hate all the traiffc bumps. Too
much signage on the roads.
• I'm 86, so bicycling is out for me. I drive carefully with particular care to avoid endangering
bicyclists. I DO strongly object to the curbs being installed in our city. I made a right turn
from a stop sign. My rear wheel on the driver's side caught the new bike curb and destroyed
my tire. It was an expensive lesson to avoid these . I asked my son-in-law, who is a bicycling
enthusiast and trainer in bike safety, what his opinion was of these curbs. He told me that
these curbs are extremely dangerous for bicyclists as well since a wrong move, or a swerve
can propel a cyclist over the handlebars and possibly into traiffc. A wobble, or glide into the
Attachment C
Page 35 of 62
curb would cause injury and possibly propel the cyclist into traiffc. I believe they pose a real
danger to both the city and to both cars and to cyclists. Try to separate bike lanes. I believe
they are dangerous both to cars and to cyclists. Please reconsider adding more of these to
our narrow streets!
• I would prefer separated bike roads, perhaps like the city of Fort Collins, Colorado has
constructed.
• We are in our 70s & 80s - access to public transportation is not convenient - a minibus
service for the intown movement is probably the only way we could see reduced use of our
car.
• Get rid of those new curbs. Dangerous! full of leaves and trash cans sit in the lanes. People
walk across when getting out of their cars.
• The protected bike lanes are scary, so I avoid them. Too easy to get trapped in them, and
hard to avoid debris and obstacles, and the ones on Chorro and Broad are so intermittent
that they require constant switching in and out of traiffc
• Lack of suiffcient inexpensive parking in town. I generally shop elsewhere because of that. I
have to drive, and the confusion of bike lanes is horrible. Chorro St. is an example of
confusion. Lighting is poor and people are confused. Even bicyclists do use the bike lane
and the often drive-through stop signs.
• No
• The new bike lane layouts on Marsh, Chorro, Morro, etc. are bad, and will inevitably lead to
an inexperienced bike rider getting severely injured or killed, and there will be a huge lawsuit
against the City.
• Thank you for all you do to make SLO safer for bicyclists
• I lived out of the country for over one year and used public transportation only. Returning to
SLO I found the public transportation too slow and inconvenient.
• the new bike lanes along Ramona/Broad/Chorro is a joke. It is very accident-prone for
vehicles due to narrowness for turns, especially for trucks, buses & emergency/ifretruck
vehicles. Also hazardous to see the curbing of bike lanes, especially at night.
• I would give up my car if there were low-cost transport for very old seniors.
• I’m retired and have a dog to care for (vet visits)
• You have to street-sweep the protected bicycle lanes, too
• I work on the Mesa in South County. There is no feasible public transit option for work. My
family walks around town mostly. However, there are some areas of town that do not have
complete or eiffcient walking paths.
• In my opinion, the *majority* of bicycle traiffc needs to be completely OFF the streets. There
has been a huge increase in SLO population/cars/drivers in the last 5-10 years, so taking
away a car lane (like was done on Laurel, or Marsh in places) is a poor solution. Bikes need
to be on dedicated bike paths NOT on streets with a separation like the new construction on
Marsh, Broad (near Foothill), or Chorro. In short: build dedicated bike paths to allow people
Attachment C
Page 36 of 62
to easily get into, or around town WITHOUT riding on streets, and many more people will
ride bikes (which will lessen the car traiffc). For what it’s worth: I ride a bike ~1000
miles/month in this county.
• Riding a bike on tank farm what a joke how people don’t die on that road they have done
this survey before NOTHING CHANGES UNLESS ITS CALPOLY OR DOWNTOWN
• I am 78 years old with a permanent disability; I have a disabled person license plate. I would
like more disabled parking around SLO, since I don't bike or walk.
• Bicyclists should follow the rules of the road. When they don’t, they should be cited. Very few
bike riders ride safely.
• It is in good condition, the bike and scooter share sounds like a pretty good idea
• Lightening on neighborhood streets, now it’s too dark, no proper lighting. this is a major for
me
• cyclists rarely stop for stop signs and signals. Right turns on red for cars should be
outlawed...
• Have longer bus service during the day and more bus stops around town would certainly
help me utilize the bus. I would also appreciate you replacing one of the removed bus stops
on Nipomo near Marsh.
• Initially I was skeptical about the $ used for the Greenway Bike Lanes, but now, after much of
it has been completed, love it! Feel much more comfortable riding my bike into town.
• I support as much bike and public transport infrastructure as possible. I am limited by my
chronic disease, but I want others to feel safe and conifdent when traveling this way.
• I cannot ride a bike as my dog accompanies me on most trips. However, we do walk
frequently, often on long distances. I see many accommodations made for biking that are
seldom used. I very much dislike sharing sidewalks with bicyclists. They ride by to o fast and
make it very dangerous.
• More people more traiffc, rush hour traiffc. None speciifcally.
• Nope!
• Bicyclists are not stopping and obeying the laws of the road. They zoom through stop signs
and cut cars off. The new cement lined bike lanes on Chorro make it diiffcult for drivers
when there is a larger car coming in oncoming traiffc. Also, the trash company complains
when there isn’t enough space between our bins, yet the city only allows the residents a
certain amount of room which doesn’t allow for the space between bins that the trash
company requests. The city also putting the watering and care of tho se planters in these
new bike lanes is ridiculous. California goes into drought and when it does our households
are only allowed a certain amount of water to use. The city is the one who chose to put these
planters in the streets therefore if they want these planters maintained it is their obligation
to do so.
• Some areas of town are easier to walk and bike to and from. I personally don’t feel there are
any safe bike routes from the Laguna Lake area to either the South Higuera or Downtown
areas
Attachment C
Page 37 of 62
• All the new bike lanes, calming circles, speed humps are not helping but making just getting
around worse. Bicyclists are not obeying traiffc laws, motorists are confused by all the street
painting
• No, I should try to take the bus more since parking downtown is disorganized
• No problem. Refuse to pay for parking since increasing parking. No more bike lanes.
• Very Good.
• My concerns: large vehicles with tires protruding outside of fenders, aggressive motorists,
distracted driving, electric boards, and scooters - speeding electric bikes on bike path
• This survey largely neglects consideration of micromobility devices, with the exception of
shared devices. I own an electric scooter and although it is similar to a bike in essence, it is
not a bike and changes some answers provided. The "other" category i s appreciated but not
enough.
• Stop with this nonsense construction based around bike lanes. You’re wasting countless tax
dollars to clog up and confuse all the car lanes. I can’t help but laugh every time I drive and
see the terrible engineering from downtown SLO through Madonna RD. It ’s a disaster. You’ve
crammed everyone into two lanes so you could put some clunky concrete bike lane with a
few awkward parking spaces and planters?! It’s an absolute all time terrible design and it’s
only leading to more pointless endeavors like this. Stop wasting money on bike lane
construction and ifx the damn roads that are causing thousands of dollars of damage to
people’s cars (the majority of who drive and will always drive) each year because you can’t
get your act together and ifx what’s right in front of you. I’ve had 4 lfat tires in the past year
in slo and that’s not a coincidence. It’s proof this is a poorly run city for transportation and
beyond.
• While riding my bike I frequently encounter dirt and gravel on bike paths making riding
somewhat dangerous.
• The bus is much more enticing, and I would pay at least double if it came on the 15 min as
opposed to the hour.
• Bike networks are still rather hodge-podge.
• Bicycles seem to be the ifrst priority in SLO. My workload is not conducive to riding a bicycle.
• Rather than the concrete dividers for bike lanes on our already narrow downtown streets
due to the increasing size of vehicles, I would prefer bike lanes clearly deifned by green
paint. I usually drive to and park a few blocks from downtown, then walk to the post oiffce,
Library, coffee shops, restaurants, and for shopping.
• There should be a campaign alerting driver to drive the speed limit OR LESS, to be courteous.
Red light running is rampant. Speed limits need to be reduced on MANY city streets (LOVR,
Johnson, Highland as examples).
• appreciate the recent upgrades! but still so many gaps in the network - even obvious ones
like Bob Jones talking ages to complete
• Yea, you've f**ked up the entire Chorro and Broad St areas with a bunch of nonsensical
"bike lane improvements". What you've done is made a mess of the whole area with what
Attachment C
Page 38 of 62
amounts to about 20 bike riders per day. It's the biggest boondoggle of a project I've seen in
my 30+ years of living here
• no
• all the new "improvements" confuse us all and make things diiffcult. Every few minutes the
rules, markings, etc. change
• I really, really, really hate the "improvements" that the city is making for cycling. I am tired of
crud (and pedestrians) in the separated bike lanes, I am tired of being trapped in them when
cars pull out into them and stop, and I am tired of cars that can't see me because someone
thinks putting planters in them makes sense. I am tired of the roundabouts where drivers
can't be bothered to look for oncoming cyclists. I am tired of bike paths where people ride
no handed e-bikes through the center of the path, or people walk with dogs off leash in the
middle of the path. Really, why can't you just take care of the roads we have and stop
literally putting more concrete in the middle of the roadway? I really expect the city to have
actual data- not surveys, but data- of rates of mishaps in traiffc and how the "improvements"
are actually making a difference per a prediction.
• No. I feel it is good already.
• too much emphasis on bike riding!! You have a huge amount of people that don't bike and
yet you just keep adding more!!
• Promoting bicycling is pointless and makes driving less safe. The hills and railroad tracks
make SLO unappealing for cycling as transit.
• More scheduled buses.
• It’d be great to have more regular transportation between SLO and cities like Santa Maria
• The bike and ped improvements the city has made in recent years are fabulous! Thank you!
The downtown bus center, bus stops, and buses should not be given over to homeless
people. I’d use the bus more if not for the homeless making it scary and dirty.
• In most of the US, public ways are dedicated to the automobile resulting in diiffcult riding
and walking conditions. We need more RR safety trail-like ways to get around that are
designed around riding/walking and not driving.
• Limit cars. Already too many!
• Not Really.
• Make the bus services run later. It is super inconvenient the bus comes once an hour AND
stops running at 5 pm!
• Broad Street terriifes me as a rider during rush hour.
• Drivers don’t fully stop at stop signs. Foothill Road is dangerous for cyclists.
• The survey posed was sent out after Cal Poly got out for summer and many students have
already left for vacation. This means that the results of the survey are (maliciously or
accidentally) skewed heavily to show less people riding bikes and taking public
transportation (as students more often do) and the feedback on improvements will be less
directed from those needing the improvements. The new anholm plaza to park system,
Attachment C
Page 39 of 62
while exponentially better than before, has major lfaws in its execution. The new all -way stop
signs on Chorro & Peach and Broad & Murray discourage bikers by making them stop and
lose momentum before a big hill, and cars often get backed up due to the une ven nature of
the traiffc lfow. Yield signs for the higher throughput road would allow fewer problems and
be even better for bikes. Additionally, the intersection at Lincoln & Chorro was poorly
designed for bikes coming from town, which means that bikes have to jump in front of the
line of traiffc to cross the street. In all, a very very welcome improvement, but it has serious
lfaws that must be addressed. Thanks!
• If a walk button is pressed, BOTH left and right side signal lights should change to a green
walk symbol. Currently, only the side with the button pressed changes.
• When your utopia is achieved in which America's 330 million reduce their "carbon footprint"
to zero, 3 billion Chinese and Indians will be happily spewing more and more carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere. The solution to problems created by technology isn't for a SMALL
PERCENTAGE of humans to cease using that technology (e.g., automobiles), but to invent
new technology.
• No
• Not enough room for drivers and cyclists alike.
• I don't go downtown anymore because parking fees are ridiculous. Plus I am afraid of the
aggressive homeless.
• I TOTALLY dislike the planter boxes and bike lanes downtown. Very unsafe while trying to
exit a parking lot because of the bike lanes and planter boxes
• I do not like the new bicycle lanes. More effort should be paid to traiffc lfow and road
conditions.
• I AM SIGHT IMPAIRED AND IT IS EVEN HARD FOR ME TO USE THE PARKING GARAGE !!!!!
• The bike lanes replacing driving lanes are making traiffc horrendous in this town
• no.
• More busses at higher frequency plz!
• The bus stop on Orcutt Road near Sacramento Drive was removed a few years ago which
makes no sense with all the residential/retail development along this corridor.
• Keep implementing the bike plan! It’s great!
• pedestrians can easily step aside when a bicycle is passing. A pedestrian is not going to get
killed by a bicycle. So pedestrians should be required to share the sidewalks with cyclists
instead of requiring cyclists to share the roads and highways with huge dangerous cars that
can kill them.
• I like the bicycling improvements on Santa Barbara Street and the Woodbridge crossing
Broad. It would be nice to have a pedestrian railroad crossing between the train station and
Orcutt
• Some of the costly bike improvements are really not needed. Keep trying!
Attachment C
Page 40 of 62
• As a construction worker I rarely walk / ride etc
• Not very happy with all the bicycling in SLO A lot of them seem very dangerous not going
downtown very often anymore because of the parking meters it’s gotten ridiculous.
• I would love to have a wider or more secured bike lane, especially along Higuera St and Tank
Farm. I have an ebike in which my 6-year-old son rides with me. I already had the bike for a
whole year and we haven't been able to ride around the city because we live along Higuera
St. The farthest place we have been is Food for Less.
• I really like the protected bike signals. They make it feel safer driving & biking, especially in
student-populated areas where attention may not be paid as much as needed
• the current bike lanes are not safe, the streets are too narrow for large buses, ifre trucks, etc
to navigate, and the bike riders do not stop at stop signs or lights
• I live in Anholm and work at Cal Poly. I rode my bike to work for 5 years. After multiple fatal
bicycle accidents in the areas around campus, I stopped riding. There is no safe pathway for
my route- around foothill and Santa Rosa. I still bike to downtown 1-2 times per week. I
would go back to riding to school if my path was safe.
• I appreciate the new North Chorro Greenway protected bike lanes and intersection
improvements
• Parking prices, lack of parking spaces. Too many bike lanes
• Keep up building protected biking lanes and safer pedestrian crossings. Always prioritize
pedestrian circulation over vehicles.
• I would love to see the bike lane that I believe was proposed to run near the train tracks go
all the way to Tank Farm Road (connecting with the trail near Sinsheimer Park). If it was built,
I would use it.
• Love the bike infrastructure improvements that have been made, excited to see more in the
coming years.
• It’s super easy to walk and bike in town, I do both; the main reason I drive also is the need to
complete other errands, drive stuff around
• I think the bike lanes on Chorro are a disaster. The lanes for the cars are too narrow with all
the truck traiffc.
• No
• I have been driving in this town daily for 27 years. The bicycling changes that have been
made over the last ifve to ten years have done very little to improve bicycling versus the
great amount of a hindrance on vehicle driving. Over the last few years, the amount of
people cycling in town has noticeably decreased. Every time I drive downtown, which is less
and less these days because downtown is an overly expensive, dirty, unpleasant experience
iflled with vagrants and panhandlers every twenty feet that are under the inlfuence of some
substance yelling and scaring my family. Speaking of bicycling downtown, removing the
driving lanes and parking spaces for nearly useless bike lanes that I never see anyone riding
their bikes in is an idea that should be revisited. That area would be better suited for
parking than nonexistent cycling. Probably the worst area in town is the Chorro Greenway.
Attachment C
Page 41 of 62
Besides greatly inconveniencing parking on that side of the street, now oncoming traiffc
while driving is dangerously close. I have had multiple near misses in that area already
especially when a larger vehicle is in the other lane coming at me forcing ove r to the side of
the lane. This is very unsafe. All the while, there are no bicycles in the Greenway. I'm sure
some people ride in that area but I've never seen one yet. Stop focusing on cycling in town
and more on improving the more rural areas that need bike lanes by widening the shoulders
of the roads giving bikes a safer area to ride and preventing vehicle traiffc from swerving into
oncoming traiffc to avoid cyclists in the too-small bike lane such as on Buckley and other
similar roads that seem to have higher bicycle usage.
• No
• Walking at night is diiffcult in neighborhoods due to limited lighting and sidewalk trip
hazards
• Your bike lanes are destroying this town for the very tiny elite percent of bicycle riders that
ride. Improve the sidewalks, improve homelessness so it’s safe to go downtown as a woman,
and make more lanes and more parking. Quit thinking that everyone ride s a bike. Some
people have a lot of little ones, some are elderly, some are disabled, and some are not
wealthy enough to own a bike.
• I think the city is doing a great job. I'd love to see more protected bicycle paths along
roadways though.
• I ride my bike every day except when I have to take more than a backpack and lunchbox. My
wife always drives because her work is too far away.
• The new protected bike lanes were and are a terrible idea. Better to just post and enforce
the shared roadways within the urban center. Let bikes set the traiffc speed bit keep the
roads wide.
• Newly installed lfashing beacons at the crosswalk on South St is a great start, but drivers
regularly fail to stop for pedestrians. More enforcement is needed. I have walked or driven
on South St multiple times a day for the last 2 years and have never s een the SLOPD
conducting traiffc enforcement.
• Most of the curbs and sidewalks are in poor condition. Would be nice if they were better
maintained. Streets in SLO are too narrow for the protected bike lanes.
• Overall, I think SLO is an exemplary city for foot and bike transportation. However, there are
always improvements we can make. I’m hesitant about scooter sharing because they can
become obstructive on sidewalks, but if integrated with proper rules to prev ent this, they
can be very convenient. I love walking downtown through SLO because of the wide sidewalks
and safe paths. However, some neighborhood sidewalks are narrow, damaged, and lack
ramps. Biking in town is also great due to the paths, greenways, and dedicated lights. Yet,
visibility can be an issue at times due to poorly placed bushes or cars parked on corners or
intersections, increasing the danger for cyclists.
• We’ve been biking more as a family during bike month and it has been so wonderful using
the protected bike lanes. My commute uses the bridge near the CHP and I feel so much safer
biking to work now. It’s made all the difference and now I'm hoping to continue to bike to
work twice a week.
Attachment C
Page 42 of 62
• I would not support a scooter-share service in SLO. These scooters make a city look junky,
and I think our town is too small for them to be helpful in reducing car trips. People use
them just to avoid walking.
• More share the road or we are a bike community signage- try to change the culture
• Pay more attention to automobile use & traiffc. So many safety issues, congestion issues,
and road conditions need to be addressed & this survey did not give an opportunity for that.
• GET RID OF THE STUPID PROTECTED BIKE LANES DOWNTOWN ON MARSH STREET!! Too
many elderly people trip over the curbs!
• Potentially e-bikes to get farther
• I have seen far more close calls with car crashes on Chorro since the addition of the
protected bike lane. They take up too much space and all the new street markings seem to
be confusing drivers. I saw two back-to-back cars almost get t-boned the other day while I
was walking towards downtown.
• I take the bus often as I have vision issues and have given up my driver's license. I can walk
to many places, and use some bus routes, and when necessary my husband drives me to
where I need to go. My issue with the buses is that there does not seem to be adequate
notice if a bus stop will be closed, can be frustrating when I hurry to the bus stop and ifnd
because of road work etc. it is too late to get to the next stop which is often too far away. I
am retired so if I miss a bus not a huge deal, but would be if I were still working and deed to
get to work.
• Please ifx tank farm to make it safe for bicyclists and pedestrians
• Buses on Patricia Drive need to go only one way. They cross the center line and go too fast
• The new bike paths on Chorro St are not being used by bikers. I've asked some and they say
they are less safe than riding in car lanes. If they hit a curb they fall will be more deadly. Also,
Getting in and out of the driveway is now hazardous to me! And I have pedestrians, 2-way
bike traiffc, and 2-way car traiffc to watch out for. This would be ok if bikers obeyed the rules
of the road but in most cases, they don't. (Blow through stop signs etc). The sidewalks
around town could be in better repair and more shade would help the planet as things get
increasingly hot.
• The speed limit is too high on Broad Street for safety. There is not enough traiffc calming on
many major streets
• We need more education -both drivers and cyclists- about what the bicycle lanes mean and
how to share the road. Cyclists seem to take unnecessary risks and drivers don’t give cyclists
the right of way when they should
• The main concerns I have with all of these are not addressed in any of the options but
transient/homeless people create an unpredictable danger whether biking on trails or
walking downtown or riding the city busses. My wife and I have experienced multiple
instances where we did not feel safe and thus nor would we feel safe with our kids. I would
like to see that concern addressed as part of this questionnaire
Attachment C
Page 43 of 62
• Car drivers need to be educated about looking before making right turns even on a green
light. Also, any crosswalk protected by a lfashing yellow light on a busy street is just a death
trap. Many drivers do NOT stop. They are going too fast. An example is King and South.
Example
• N/A
• None
• Protected bike lane on tank farm would be a game changer
• I will bike more the biking routes are complete and safer than they currently are. I love what
was done with Johnson Ave. between Bishop and Laurel.
• I walk all over San Luis Obispo and ifnd no problem with it anywhere except when I have to
throw cyclists off it. I own a scooter and ride it occasionally in all kinds of traiffc because I am
courteous and know the rules of the road. Something that is lack ing from the majority of
cyclists I see.
• bicycling in the city is pretty good except for a few well -known "problem" intersections.
ifxing these would be a good return on investment. bicycling between cities (SLO, AG, Pismo,
Morro, Santa Margarita) could be improved with marked bike lanes.
• Parking is a huge issue. Rideshares or car shares would need their own parking.
• I really like the lfashing crosswalks and the dedicated and auto-separated bike lanes
• Doing a great job with improving bicycle infrastructure. Keep going!
• Need a light at Los Osos Valley Road and Diablo Dr. it is so unsafe with cars and bikes trying
to take a left onto LOVR from Diablo!
• I can't bike downtown and shop. And, I don’t enjoy biking. I love to walk, but what deters me
most is running into homeless people who are screaming or asking for money. I don’t always
feel safe.
• Add speed bumps on all residential roads that drive into onramps for the freeway. More
pedestrian bridges to bypass major traiffc arteries.
• You have destroyed Chorro St and made it more dangerous for cars, increase/congested
traiffc lfow, and narrowed the streets WAY too much.
• The current round of bike improvements and new green lanes on busy roads is much
appreciated.
• I would ride my bike if there were off-road paths rather than riding in bike lanes on the
street. Too unsafe for me!! I would walk more if the sidewalks around town were replaced
and maintained. I am afraid of tripping and falling on cracked/patched sidewalks.
• homeless issues need to be addressed. Last time I walked with my kid over the Madonna
overpass we encountered aggressive behavior from the homeless population. Haven't
attempted a walk through that part of town since.
• Electric bikes and scooters are dangerous because they go too fast. There needs to be new
speed laws regarding these modes of transport. I’m a senior, 72, and I enjoy walking over
Attachment C
Page 44 of 62
riding a bike. I’m concerned about the Higuera St. bike/car plans for South Higuera. I don’t
agree with this plan.
• The intersection of Royal way and Los osos valley road has a really quick light change when
turning left - when cycling, almost have been hit with oncoming traiffc after light changes
really quickly. A few more seconds on that protected left light change f rom LOVR to Royal
Way would be super helpful
• Although I support the idea of raised curbs separating bike lanes and vehicle roadways,
some of the ones that have been built, especially on narrow roads, are more hazardous to
travel both for bikes and vehicles. In addition, some of the "green" bikeways are confusing.
For example, the one that passes by Wells Fargo makes a left jog to allow for the right turn
lane, Several times I have attempted to make a right turn into the WF driveway; while waiting
for a bike rider, vehicles behind me get annoyed and lean on their horns. I've also had a bike
rider lfip me off while attempting to make this turn after they continued straight rather than
follow the "green" path.
• Do not like what you have done making single lanes.
• Homelessness on the bikeways makes my family uncomfortable
• link the railroad bike path to Sinsheimer pool with a maintained/hardscape path up behind
the transit storage yard along the creek.
• I think some of your new bike lanes are dangerous at intersections. It makes it hard for
turning cars to see. I ride a bicycle
• My husband and I are 75 and 83, neither of us can walk far or ride a bicycle. With all the new
additions to the bicycle lanes I hope the city is going to enforce the traiffc violations bicyclists
do. The bicyclists do not stop at stop signs or look before they cross. They think a car can
come to a sudden stop. Also, what the city has done to the Madonna Rd area is crazy. You
have to go all the way down to the roundabout to turn into the SLO Promenade. I thought
this city was concerned about the environment, but they want us to drive down and back to
turn into that shopping center. The city has wasted much of the taxpayer's money without
even listening to our concerns and complaints. The city also went way over budget for the
Chorro St bicycle lanes. If any employee that works somewhere went over budget by that
much money, they would be ifred
• Bus routes are challenging since there's no route from South Higuera to the Airport without
going through downtown.
• distracted drivers. I was a longtime bike commuter, but it’s now too dangerous.
• There are already enough bike lanes! We need more places to park our cars. I hate doing
business downtown because parking is an issue and it is expensive.
• I don’t live that far from my work, and would be interested in riding my bike, but busy roads
and unprotected turns (at Tank Farm and Santa Fe Rd for example), make me apprehensive
about biking to work safely.
• It seems too many resources are being used for too few people. Future maintenance is
Attachment C
Page 45 of 62
• Stop building the barriers and curbs to separate cars and bikes! This makes accidents more
likely. Please leave our city streets alone.
• I would be more willing to bike but I have 2 young kids and time constraints for school and
work which makes it diiffcult.
• The curb ramp on Highland and Santa Rosa has not been repaired for over a year. New
separated bike lanes on Chiron/Broad streets are a safety hazard.
• The new roundabout at the intersection of Buchon and Toro was a very weird choice, I still
don't know what it accomplishes. It is not close to being centered in the intersection which
makes it extremely diiffcult to make such a tight turn, and it isn't eve n a real roundabout as
both Toro lanes still have stop signs. I normally love roundabouts but it feels like an
unnecessary inconvenience in the middle of the road that could have just been a speed
bump if the objective was to reduce vehicle speed on that r oad.
• The new bike lanes in the Chorro St. corridor are absolutely ridiculous and make no sense.
I've never seen anything so visually complex and confusing anywhere else in California. It is
so non-standard that out-of-town folks are going to be more distracted trying to ifgure out
what the heck is going on with all the green paint and lines that their attention will be
redirected away from paying attention to bicycles as they are entering or exiting private
driveways or commercial parking. Not to mention whatever will be growing in those
ridiculous plastic planters that will block sight lines and cost a fortune to water when the
drought years start again.
• A bike bath along tank farm would be incredible! Similar to the bike path on Madonna or the
one along south Higuera. I do not use the south Higuera to LOVR though due to safety
concerns.
• Better stop locations for buses. On behalf of students in the county, stops need to be added
to make up for the lack of options with district buses.
• Do include the needs of older folks in your transportation plans. SLO has older folks for
whom bicycling is not an option.
• Roads/lanes have become narrower in trying to add lanes to existing roadways. Sharp pointy
curbs at crosswalks like the one in front of the post oiffce on Madonna Road. (Just look at it -I
wonder how many tires and wheels have been ruined) The pedestrian traiffc signal at the
bridge at Perfumo Road behind Dicks Sporting Goods is a joke. The city could have saved
hundreds of thousands and made it much Safer by putting in a 3 -way stop. I am not lying
when I say that I hear sirens every day from my home. Didn't used to. But, quoting Dave
Mayor Dave Romero during an environmental impact meeting for the Perfumo Creek
Commons " We plan on making San Luis Obispo the center of commerce in the county, and
if you don't like it you can leave". I was there, I heard him say it. Same meeting where a city
council person who went on to be mayor later said: That she met with all of the neighbors on
Cayucos Drive to discuss concerns about the project. She never spoke to either myself or my
wife. Get my drift. City government is going to do whatever they want (how about the trees
that were cut down at San Luis Ranch). And so now you put out this survey. Yeah, right. And
how about that bike trail that runs along the water treatment plant? Yeah, that's a pleasant
ride. I hope this is civil enough and doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.
Attachment C
Page 46 of 62
• The bicyclists in this town are a complete nuisance. None of them follow traiffc directions,
and the green paths are rarely utilized. Bikes should be banned in Santa Barbara.
• I love to walk to any location within 2 miles. I just did not happen to do that last week. I am
extremely concerned about the restrictions that the addition of bike lanes has created for
parking and the impact on emergency evacuation routes out of the city. We will not be
escaping wildifres on bikes. Many of the neighborhoods in SLO have been designated high
wildifre-risk areas. We are unable to insure our homes. And the city is not mitigating wildifre
risk in open spaces. My observation is that most cyclis ts do not obey traiffc signals or traiffc
regulations. And they do not use designated streets, such as Morro. Instead, they clog
parallel streets for motorists. The addition of bike infrastructure and the elimination of lanes
on major streets has made the City of SLO more unsafe for all residents. I do own a bike and
enjoy biking. But I do have concerns about the unintended consequences with the
infrastructure that is being put in place.
• Way too much money being spent on concerns of the 'biking community'. I am way too
inconvenienced by the street/intercessions made and being proposed.
• Please improve bicycle lanes on south Higuera at from Madonna to Prado to connect to the
Bob Jones trail. Also please connect the bike lanes from Madonna(dedicated bike trail) to
South Street or Beebee St. There is currently no easy way to cross over from South Street to
Madonna.
• Stop with the green zones. They are poorly coordinated, they go against normal biking laws
(going against traiffc), they are just the worst. Stop with them. Increase bike awareness and
the laws around how to safely ride in and through town. Green zones are terrible. If you
want ways to better improve it then please reach out.
• The bikeway/sidewalk improvements along the primary Madonna Road corridor don’t feel
safe enough - there are too many high-traiffc driveways with poor visibility. It is so
appreciated that effort has been made to connect the Laguna Lake area to downtown bu t it
still feels very scary as a cyclist or pedestrian!
• Requiring bicyclists to come to a complete stop (instead of yield) at every stop sign is overkill.
• Too much money is being spent on bike paths. The under-used bike paths are a hazard for
pedestrians. This is true at FPC.
• We need some help crossing California at Phillips in order to get to the new(ish) bike bridge.
• The laws of the road need to be enforced for bike riders and especially for E-
bikes/scooters/skateboarders. We need to spend more on maintaining roads for autos and
less on all of these things for bike
• Bike lanes are taking up valuable and affordable street space for parking which is woefully
inadequate and expensive for downtown and affects my visits to downtown businesses
• The separation dividers are horrible and make it more confusing for everyone!!
Attachment C
Page 47 of 62
• I cannot use a bicycle due to health issues and too much emphasis is on biking. I would
prefer dedicated walking paths that connect across town better.
• Your new bike lanes are an accident waiting to happen for cars, trucks, emergency vehicles,
and maintenance equipment. 2/3 of the people voted against it and City Counsel did just the
opposite and as usual, did what they wanted to do. Once you started maki ng narrow lanes,
you should have allowed the neighborhoods and public to vote on how it affected us before
you invested more and more $ into this project for cyclists vs people who own homes and
cars. Whatever happened to We the People?
• My neighborhood, Sierra Meadows/Toscano, is disconnected from safe bike routes we have
to drive to reach daycare, work, and even a park.. Please prioritize the separated bike lane
on South Higuera and connecting this neighborhood via the Prado overpass.
• Improved bus service and bus routes would make a huge difference. In terms of pedestrian
safety, there need to be more crosswalks - and possibly stop signs - at intersections that
aren't necessarily MAJOR intersections, as the survey option above offers, but ones where
visibility is limited and cars drive pretty quickly even though it's not a major intersection (for
instance: N. Tassajara @ Cerro Romauldo Ave. is terrible, especially given it is a block from an
elementary school and thus services many young kids walking home. A traiffc circle was
installed, but cars driving along Tassajara don't have a stop sign and often barrel through,
whizzing around the circle like it's a video game driving challenge rather than a traiffc -
calming measure. For pedestrians trying to cross, that corner - especially with a hill on N.
Tassajara and cars parked right to the end of the curb - makes it very hard to see whether
cars are coming. Kids are frequently stranded on the traiffc circle in the middle of the road
waiting for cars to go by before they can ifnish crossing. Crosswalks would help clarify that
the cars really should stop for the pedestrians in the street, and a 4 -way stop would be even
better since it's also hard for cars to see pedestrians until they are almost right on them.) In
terms of bicycle safety, I think one of the biggest impediments is the weird outrage SLO
residents seem to have toward cyclists (read nearly any NextDoor thread about bike lanes,
cyclists, etc. if you don't know what I mean). Drivers in this town are incensed by cyclists and
it feels very unsafe when you know your fellow community members in cars feel entitled to
skirt law and traiffc conventions because they ifnd cyclists annoying (and, horrifyingly,
because apparently a lot of SLO residents assume many folks using bikes for transit in town
are unhoused folks who they think...deserve to be treated with disdain?! NextDoor &
Facebook commentary, at least, demonstrates a pretty ugly side of SLO....)
• San Luis Obispo needs more downtown handicapped parking closer to businesses. Driving
around town is horrible now for seniors unable to use other modes of transportation due to
all of the modiifcations made for bicycles.
• Absolutely everyone I know and talk to HATE the bicycle curbs that have destroyed Santa
Barbara Ave, Chorro, Broad, downtown, etc. These streets are now too narrow for vehicular
traiffc, provide no room for emergency vehicles, and are dangerous. The curb ed areas
become clogged with leaves and debris, so even the bicyclists don't use them! It is
impossible to turn right onto Broad from Murray, without running over the new curb; there
isn't enough room to make the turn without running into oncoming traiffc ... the expense to
install these absurd curbs must be enormous, and to what beneift? Practically NONE - I
Attachment C
Page 48 of 62
never see anyone using these stupid bike lanes. Please stop this insanity, and DO NOT put in
any more curbs on our city streets - you are ruining SLO.
• Having biked to work every day when I worked downtown, I’m very sympathetic to buying
transportation. And, although I never thought I’d say it, the concessions here to encouraging
biking seem to be coming at too great a cost. In the ifve years that I trave led both ways on
Laurel Lane four times daily, I only saw a couple of bikes. Now that there is a dedicated bike
lane, I still see a bike only very rarely. But the congestion due to the loss of the car lane
causes them to avoid the street altogether and tak e a longer route. Are there traiffc studies
done before and after these changes that verify their effectiveness?
• Fix sidewalks for walking. Maybe there is too much focus on bicycling in town.
• Old Age (80s) keeps me home most days.
• On the trails, such as the Bob Jones trail in the Laguna Lake area of SLO, there are many
homeless people, many of whom seem to have some kind of mental health issue. Although I
live near this trail, I will not take my daughter there due to the seclusion f rom the public
coupled with the camps of homeless people.
• Finish bike/walking path from the train station to Cal Poly
• The more the better
• For bicycling, I feel like people use the sidewalk bike lanes/ shared pedestrian sidewalks. It
helps alleviate stress for a lot of bikers who feel like cars are too close. Also, at an all way
stop people typically give the right of way to a bicyclist, even if they weren't the ifrst one
there. It's annoying because if I'm at a full stop, it wastes more time than necessary than if
they just went their turn and just watch me struggle to get up to speed and out of the way.
• Please look at the signage at the new Sidney/Johnson cross
• The homeless/mentally ill problem makes the bus, biking, and walking not feel safe.
• This is an example of an agenda-driven survey. Survey participant ages are not requested.
The survey construction is heavily biased towards bicycling and walking despite the fact that
San Luis Obispo is a rural region. While short trips were commonplace wh en I was a college
student living on campus, typical trips for our family are 6 miles or more. I continue to
believe the goal of the road obstructions is to create congestion so voters will approve a new
billion-dollar tax increase for Measure J, which was rejected in 2016. I and others will
continue to raise these concerns with the SLO City Council.
• Yes, you never ONCE asked me to describe myself. I am a disabled person with a
handicapped license plate. I generally use a walker to get around unless it is only a short
distance. K
• Adjacent landscaping, business and residential, growing into sidewalks. Delivery and service
trucks parked in NO PARKING bike lanes and across sidewalks and ramps.
• I dislike the new bicycle curbs on Chorro St. Etc.
• The intersection at Laurel Ln & Southwood Drive is hazardous to cross on foot after dark.
Drivers do not see or look for pedestrians
Attachment C
Page 49 of 62
• Please don’t place planters on concrete bike separators. They are typically moved or kicked
sideways, making the bike lane a hazard. Please construct landscaping within the concrete
separators.
• Slo MUST provide protected bike lanes to enable mobility for kids and less able bikers. A
painted line in traiffc does NOT count as bike -friendly infrastructure. AND in slo biking in a
painted bike lane is a death sentence for kids or less able bikers (e.g . older folks). I urge you
to focus on this! Certain streets should be closed to traiffc (only residents) to effectively
provide for bike corridors and green space. Tell me how I can help!!
• My children are young at the moment and my spouse is hesitant about the physical energy
needed to ride places. We do not have ebikes, however as they get older and we add ebikes
we will use the protected bike paths more. I am very excited to use the Broad St and Chorro
protected lanes more, they are great!
• Bikes do not follow road rules and stop signs, or traiffc lights. Leading to unsafe road
conditions for everyone. Bikers act like a car, pedestrian and bicycle and still fail to follow
basic road rules.
• SLO is too hilly to be a bike-friendly town. SLO is putting the cart before the horse by building
bulky bike lanes (LOVR/Costco intersection is a great example. In all honesty I don't think I've
seen more than one biker there in the last ten years, yet we put in large, lane-blocking curbs
which are a huge inconvenience to all visitors to that shopping center because they are all in
cars.) with the mentality of "if we build it, they will come", which is not going to happen. I'm
not anti-bike, I'm just a realist. If I didn't live up Johnson Hill, I would bike ALL the time. I love
biking.
• SLO is a beautiful town, and we love to walk downtown! Our kids are young though and we
are nervous for them to ride, especially on the busier streets. We are not at all interested in
shared transportation. Our schedule is too unpredictable, and to have to coordinate with
others would be way too stressful.
• I'm retired, so I don't have any work/school trips. My "carpool" is when my wife and I go
somewhere together.
• The area between California Blvd, Grand Ave, Foothill Blvd, and Hwy 101 is missing a lot of
sidewalk. We walk in the street. At the same time, drivers often speed or barely slow down at
stop signs. Many crossings are unmarked.
• We consider walking as one of our transportation options, and do it as much as possible for
health, to save money, help the environment.
• This survey is written only from the point of view that everyone wants to ride a bicycle and if
we don't, the reason we don't must be on the survey list. This is not true.
• Realistically these things don't work for people who are like me and have kids going to 2
separate schools in town (elementary and high school) and I have a job that requires I care
for animal feed on a regular basis. There is no realistic way I'm going to be able to drop off
and pick up kids on time if I'm on a bike. Plus a bike can't carry all my groceries or animal
feed. Just not something most people are going to be able to do all the time. Cars are here to
stay, like it or not. What you need is better and safer bus transportation, but even that is a
hard sell for the average Californian. I enjoy walking for exercise and for fun, and I do so
Attachment C
Page 50 of 62
daily, but there is a big difference between that and trying to walk to the schools, the stores
etc. Probably more realistic for people who live and work downtown or are poly kids headed
to class.
• The separate bike lanes are an eyesore for homeowners
• Really love all the efforts that are happening for safe biking and walking already! Possible
improvements: slow the speed of cars on Broad Street and I don’t know how, but impressing
on drivers how dangerous their speeding is to bikes and pedestrians, sad ly even a scared
straight of memorials of fatal accidents, or???
• I walk all over town and have no problems. I think that some of the changes done to the
roadways have made things more dangerous.
• Not sure what the current situation is but cleaning the bike lanes regularly is important
because all the debris/screws from the roadway ultimately make their way there. I consider
bicycling to be more dangerous than responsible motorcycling, given the deb ris and never-
ending stream of drivers coming up on you from behind. The question about walking I
understood to mean walking to work and why I marked it as taking too long. I go for little
walks around my neighborhood all the time and at Meadow Park which is great. Thanks.
• Too much bike-related spending. Too many parking spaces are removed on residential
streets.
• I work outside of SLO, too far to bike or walk
• I bike thru town daily. There is a huge disconnect from Higuera/Marsh on ramp to get onto
the Madonna bike trail. It is very unsafe as you try to cross and go under the freeway while
traiffc is merging onto the freeway. Additionally, you have to dodge the transient trash as
you bike on the sidewalk. Due to the tents and carts, I would never consider riding this route
at night. The return from Madonna biking trail into town is unsafe and I ifnd myself riding
against traiffc and on the sidewalk. Then I make a left on Higuera, against traiffc, riding on
the sidewalk until I cross over to Marsh. I don't know how kids are supposed to ride from
town to the middle school safely. Additionally, getting on and off the Madonna trail at the
Madonna Inn has a disconnect. I end up riding through the Madonna parking lot to access
the walk/bike path on Madonna Road. The walk-bike path on Madonna Road is nice and I
can get over to Target, Whole Foods, Nordstrom Rack, etc. easily by crossing over by the Post
Oiffce. I don't understand how to get over to the other side of the road on Chorro. I have to
make a left on Lincoln. I don't want to make traiffc wait for me or put myself in a situation
where I am annoying drivers, so I make a right on Lincoln, turn around, and wait at t he 4 way
then cross Chorro to go up Lincoln. Lastly, I don't understand why the biking route down
Chorro was not sent down Lincoln through the Anholm District. I ride that instead of using
the protected bike lane (and it would have saved money). I like the Protected Bike Lanes, but
it does cause some drive confusion. It is diiffcult when trash cans are placed in them, when
there is debris, trash, or leaves in them, and when drivers roll over them and gets stuck.
Thank you for listening.
• I love areas with cycle tracks, like the recent changes to Madonna Road. I am sad that the
revamp along Orcutt between Johnson and Tank Farm has a concrete sidewalk that I rarely
see anyone using, plus a narrow bike lane on a road where people drive 50+ MP H. Why
couldn't that be a cycle track as well?
Attachment C
Page 51 of 62
• We live near Laguna Lake and I always want to bike into downtown. We would really beneift
from improving and fully paving the bike/pedestrian underpass North of the Madonna Inn.
With the new development going up, this is especially important so that our new neighbors
don’t have to be car-dependent. Another minor improvement is to improve the entrance to
the Madonna Inn path by adding paint or a short protected lane, to signal to riders that this
path even exists. Then we need to pave a path through the Lemo n Grove trailhead and
under the freeway. Then, perhaps most crucially, we need a much safer and wider bike path
across the on-ramp. Hazard lights and a slightly raised curb could be suiffcient. I see so
much potential for the Madonna Road and Inn path to bring people from my neighborhood
to downtown in both a beautiful and safe way. It is unclear to me whether the Prado
interchange project will have safe and protected bike lanes, so we must have another option
for crossing the 101.
• The added bike lanes and signage are so confusing. The majority of times I have seen
bicyclists, they don’t follow normal traiffc rules. They don’t stop at stop signs making it
dangerous for car drivers who do obey the law.
• Some bike lanes are dangerous with poor transitions from gutter to roadway. Also, debris is
often swept to the shoulder area where bikes are meant to be ridden.
• STOP, STOP your conversion of streets into bikeways and creating traiffc jams everywhere.
Only a few bikes are used, and you CANNOT force people to use their bikes more than they
can. The CITY does not belong to only a few who are loud and expect everyone to be like
them. Most of us are old and cannot ride bikes. Please STOP wasting our tax money on this
useless thing.
• The closed-off bike lanes between concrete curbs are scary and dangerous, there is no place
to go in an emergency. For example, a lot of tourists or walkers will just stand in the
designated bike path between the concrete curbs so there is no exit, I eithe r drive my bike
into the pedestrians, or drive into curb by sidewalk or drive into curb by cars. Scary
• This survey is again focused on people riding bikes in SLO! In their quest to make things
easier for cyclists, the City Council has made driving a car (which 99% of residents do)
unsafe. The cement barriers have made busy roads too narrow for safe driving particularly
downtown and now on Broad and Osos Streets. They have made parking downtown and on
Broad impossible. We used to patronize dt businesses daily but have given up trying to park
near our destinations. Additionally, the cement barricades and lime green paint everywhere
are an eyesore. Other cities have white painted clearly demarcated bike lanes that work
beautifully! Our beautiful streets now look tacky. While we applaud those City Council
Members who are avid cyclists, please remember that the majority of your constituency are
not. Thank you for your time.
• You put the bike path on too small of a road ( Chorro) and it is not continuous and many
riders consistently ride on the very narrow roads and not in the bike paths. You removed
turn lanes and backed up traiffc, the sidewalks are scary as bikes often use t he sidewalk,
even with bike lanes. The electric bikes are too fast to judge how much time you have to
cross or use the sidewalks and roads. It seems like poor planning to cram bike lanes into
narrow streets. Many of us do not have the time, physicality or ability to carry others who
can not ride all on one bike
Attachment C
Page 52 of 62
• The protector on-street bikeways on Chorro St are a travesty. There was plenty of room for a
regular bike lane, but you’ve eliminated a HUGE % of parking and have devalued the homes
that now have those hideous curbs and no street parking for their guests. All the streets
around Chorro are permitted, and now north Chorro is overloaded with cars that have been
displaced.
• I just looked on Google. If I wanted to take a bus to the airport from my house it would take
about an hour. Driving takes 12 minutes (Laguna Lake area).
• I pick up trash while walking and would love more trash cans besides just on a few streets
downtown.
• I think the city does a great job. Compared to where I grew up I feel the night lighting is
subpar but otherwise any issues I have are out of the city's control; steep hills, aggressive
drivers, etc.
• The overuse of city funds for bicycle lanes has diminished my faith in our city government.
The separated pathways have been poorly thought out, resulting in traiffc congestion for the
majority, weighed against the dubious safety of the minority. People wi ll continue to migrate
out of town (where there is parking and it’s easier to drive), and the downtown area will
continue to suffer from failed retailers. Even if you eventually train locals to understand the
bike lanes currently in place, out-of-town drivers will continue to be a hazard to cyclists. Best
to put the roads back to how they were and educate everyone better on sharing the road,
cyclists and motorists alike.
• Need to ticket vehicles that don't obey the 3 ft law
• The intersections with corners intruding into the street (such as on Madonna and near
Costco/Target) feel less safe all around - the auto turns are less natural. The
expanded/separated bike lanes in some parts of town (like on Chorro) make the street feel
very narrow...I have started avoiding some of those areas.
• Parking is too costly & limited, there too many homeless not too much reason to go in
• Cross of Johnson Avenue and Sydney Street is a very dangerous crossing, an upward hill can
block the view of some drivers, combined with the high speed of the road and little markings
or protection for pedestrians, it is not a good place to cross.
• I really enjoy biking in SLO with all the improvements you all are making. Thank you for
giving bikes their share of the road!
• PLEASE put a separate bike path down Tank Farm
• Town roadways are not equipped to handle the current population. Trying to force people to
bike or use public transportation is not the answer. Should have prepared local streets prior
to all the growth.
• More lfashing lights at busy intersections for pedestrians
• Stop taking away parking at Diane’s and narrowing streets. Get rid of those stupid
roundabouts. Rarely see anyone biking when go downtown. Downtown has been ruined.
It’s now a s*** show.
Attachment C
Page 53 of 62
• We need better lighting at most bus stops within the city and we need the city and RTA
systems to work more seamlessly together. Also, for some reason token transit did away
with being able to purchase a single fare. That should be brought back along with the option
to pay with a debit/credit card as they have on Santa Maria to SB buses.
• We used to live in Amsterdam, and the physical separation of bikes from cars was the key to
getting people to use bikes. It was much safer.
• The condition of the roads needs to be improved.
• Thank you for this survey. I’d like to see safe bike paths for children to be able to cycle to
school and parks. And more facilities for families to cycle and walk safely.
• E-bikes drive too fast on sidewalks and mixed -use trails. The city does not regulate
• Bike riders should have to be licensed and take a written test on traiffc and safety rules. They
should be ifned for breaking the rules same as car drivers
• Need bike lanes on Tank Farm between Higuera and Broad. Seems like a big missing link
• The city should focus on repairing street pavement and faded lane lines. The city should also
focus on the existing sidewalks that are uneven, etc. The town is looking run down and it’s
dangerous not to have clearly marked lanes, limit lines, etc. You have so much going on with
signage, poor road maintenance etc that it’s overwhelming. The city has made things worse
with the free lanes and protected bike lanes - you’ve made it so confusing for drivers they
drive worse now and can’t always see cyclists in protected lanes because they are blocked
from view by parked cars.
• How about a complete bike lane on Foothill for all students & locals? Super busy street.
• as a 30-year bike commuter in SLO: keep bushes trimmed back from bike lanes (Madonna,
Foothill, elsewhere - many places where plant/tree growth forces me closer to 45mph+
traiffc or to duck to not be hit by a branch); anything possible to calm/slow traiff c especially
at transitions between bike lanes/unprotected.
• We are not Amsterdam. Stop trying to push biking so much. Cars to bikes are 10,000:1 on
South Higuera. Riding a bike in SLO doesn't make sense for 95% of the people 95% of the
time.
• We appreciate the City’s efforts in improving safety for bicyclists.
• I LOVE LOVE LOVE the effort on Marsh & Chorro creating bike pathways, but they create
several problems: danger of right hook by drivers not seeing fast-moving [e]bikes hidden by
parked cars, trash cans/debris in the pathway, passengers blocking the path when milling
around parked cars, weaving in and out of the pathway and intersection. I prefer bike lanes
in traiffc and or the way Germany does it in Berlin: Cars, parked cars, curb, bike/scooter
path, peds, buildings. Spend more on education too? Love t he Bike Conifdence course -
make standard K-12 education? Get CP to require it?
• Bike theft is a real issue that needs some action. Why ride somewhere only to have my bike
stolen even when locked up?
• Improve the combined traiffc light at Foothill and Chorro and Foothill and Broad.
Attachment C
Page 54 of 62
• Compare the bus system to Australia and how much more eiffcient they are as well as
safety. More connectivity. needs safety
• Walking and biking downtown is not safe because of the homeless vagrant population
• Live in the Anholm area, and the newly added bike-designated lanes are not working. There
are too many signs: for cyclists and drivers. It is overwhelming to try to ifgure out what
applies and when. Plus many of the signs are too high/in trees and bushes that you can not
even read. Broad Street speciifcally now has a designated bike lane and bike/car share
green way lane - how is this helpful? With the added designated bike lane - it feels like all
traiffc is moving faster. Cyclists do not look for backing driveway cars or cars turning into
driveways. Cars feel bikes have their own lane, so they now drive much above the speed
limit. It feels like many cyclists don't use stop signs. They just continue at their normal rate
of speed through intersections. When will remaining non-handicap accessible street corners
be corrected? Speciifcally Broad and Murray - daily see many Villages Retirement Home
Residents concerned about their walking path (they still try to use the large curb corners
instead of the street walkway). The new designations walking into the streets make them
and me uncomfortable - the small barrier does not create any security. The Chorro Street
planter boxes are making it even harder for residents to get into and out of driveways -
another line of distraction and visual impairment to allow safe entrance and exit from all
street traiffc. The reduction and randomly enforced street parking is concerning. Where can
my gardener, house-keeper, pet sitter, etc park for the couple of hours they are visiting my
house? Sometimes they get citations, other times there is nothing for days. The
requirement to move parked vehicles every 72 hours is unnecessary. If my home only has
one parking driveway spot, our second car is on the street with a pass and we leave town -
the anxiety of thinking about coming home to a citation can ruin my entire trip. Where do
UPS, FedEx, and USPS vehicles now stop so they can make deliveries when there is nowhere
for them to park/pull over? Do they have to walk for blocks with heavy boxes to residential
homes? There is no designated place for our bins on trash day. Once they are emptied, the
bins are randomly left somewhere in the street/car lane and/or bike lane. This does not
increase safety for anyone in the Anholm area or for people using these streets to commute.
Summary - it feels like the implementation of this Broad St/Chorro St bike path/green way
system was implemented using a check list for satisfaction, but did not take into
consideration actual lifestyle and daily use.
• I am absolutely ifne with walking around SLO and do it often. The only aspect of cycling that I
would like to see more of is more bike lanes and I do NOT mean more designated,
separated, curbed bike lanes.
• Your survey is biased to make people feel that there are problems with traveling around our
town. I realize you are trying to get people out of their cars, but you are doing it way too far
for the bicycles. The poles you are putting at some street corner s are dangerous for cars.
I'm concerned about Chorro Street and how it has been narrowed down from your new bike
lanes. I do like the new stop signs you have placed around town.
• I wish the streets were not so narrow and have no idea how ifretrucks can maneuver. Also,
twice now traiffc has backed up badly including a garbage truck due to a SLOPD oiffcer
pulling over a person right at the Dalidio/Froom Ranch roundabout. The oiffcer should have
instructed the car that was getting pulled over to proceed into the neighborhood so cars
Attachment C
Page 55 of 62
could proceed but the streets now are so narrow and single lane that it trapped everyone. I
do have bike riders in my home and they are drivers too but we feel this town has only put
emphasis on making it easier for biking and harder for driving. Being a busy mom, I am
constantly picking up kids, their friends, going to Costco, etc. and need my car. Please
remember that making traiffc lfow eiffciently for car traiffc is just as important. Thank you
• I get frustrated when bikes use sidewalks
• I feel with all the improvements and convenience provided to bikers that they should help
pay for the cost and upkeep by purchasing a yearly license of $75-$100. Also many bike 🚴
riders do not obey the traiffc rules and it is also a danger to people who drive cars.
• More separated bikeways on busy streets, e.g. Broad south of South St
• There is a section on S Higuera just south of South Hills where the sidewalk ends and there is
gravel for just a house or 2, but forces you off the sidewalk, and that happens to be where
the road narrows from one 2 lanes to 1 lane (going north). Makes for a dangerous spot
where a sidewalk could easily be continued there.
• The worst thing about walking or biking is the fumes and noise from gas and diesel cars.
Promotion of more EVs would make the streets more enjoyable for everyone
• oncoming traiffc to the intersection with crosswalks curbs not painted red. i.e. Patricia Dr.
and Craig Way
• The City is doing a good job in this arena.
• The roads need to be maintained. Sacramento Street! Tank Farm! Johnson! I don't like the
bike lane curbs etc downtown and on Chorro. Too many obstacles and distractions - does
not feel safe. A painted bike lane at these locations would work better wish more people
biked - seeing a lot of e-bikes.
• As a regular bicycle rider for iftness, I ifnd the gaps in protected bicycle lanes on Broad St &
Chorro make riding no more inviting than previous to their construction. I am well pleased
that electric-powered buses are being brought into service. I ifnd SLO to be very walkable.
• I usually ride my bicycle whenever I can but I’m injured currently. Biking downtown slo is
great!
• Bicyclists need to obey the rules of the road for a bicyclist, understand they do not always
have the right of way and that they are not pedestrians.
• I walk frequently from my home for recreation and to walk downtown. However, with a
homeless shelter being built in my neighborhood on my walking route, I will probably drive
more not less. I am greatly concerned about personal safety.
• City is overrun with bike lanes that take over roads with a confusing array of paint, signs,
bollards etc. Becoming a nightmare to drive a car even though most of these bike lanes that
have been created are NOT USED by cyclists... This survey is skewed in a very negative way
for bicycling and walking. Are you not concerned about the driver's experience - now
rendered hazardous by your narrowing of roads (such as Chorro) - that no emergency
vehicles can utilize safely, and the traiffc calming circles you ha ve installed in residential
areas which are totally ignored by cars and which cause the cars going at the usual speed to
Attachment C
Page 56 of 62
drive around into the pedestrian walkways - such as the one on Patricia and Cerro
Remauldo. The City is rendering the roads a nightmare and I do not know which group is
beneifting?????
• SLO generally friendly to biking and walking
• I share the road with bicyclists but ifnd more than half of them do not follow the rules of the
road putting each of us in harms way. More education for cyclists would be appreciated.
• The concrete curb you installed to establish bike lanes is dangerous for vehicle traiffc. Since
that part of the street is not available to me, a driver, the bicycle riders should be required to
buy permits to cover the maintenance of their bicycle lanes - not
• I’ve taken the bus before to get to and from town and quite like it but often it’s faster/more
convenient for me to drive
• Bike rider violation enforcement
• The goal to have no vehicle fatalities in the city is unrealistic and should be abandoned. The
recent changes in the Anholm neighborhood has polluted the neighborhood with too much
signage, painted streets, speed humps, stop signs, curbs in the street, et c. I have cycled to
work and around this town for 30 years. The changes you are making to promote cycling are
a waste of our tax dollars. There is, and always has been a certain risk to cycling. Spending
out tax dollars on the projects you have recently for cyclists is a crime. You have made it
harder for elderly and disabled people who have to drive. Please stop trying to please the
special interest cycling groups at a cost and inconvenience to the rest of our citizens. Do the
people designing these projects even live in our City??
• The hurried and inattentive drivers concern me more than anything. Secondly, the lack of
traiffc enforcement isn’t a big issue but I feel traiffc has become worse each year. People
move here and seem to bring with them their big city bad habits. I don’t go downtown SLO
anymore because it’s a nightmare to ifnd parking.
• I am retired so it was diiffcult for me to ifll out this survey. I am 72 years old and riding my e -
bike and walking are my preferred means of transportation.
• Just that I am wholly delighted by the degree of alternative means of transportation available
in SLO. Please keep it up!
• Stop wasting money on bicycle lane painting and curbing. Most of us are too lazy to ride a
bicycle instead of driving a car--me included.
• Like what's being done for bicycles. Would like the sidewalks in the older neighborhoods
updated to latest standards.
• Fewer stop signs. Actually, use through roads for bike lanes? Why not Chorro vs multiple
others
• No recognition of mode driving with family members, bicyclists speed, are too aggressive,
don't obey lights, don't watch out for pedestrians, bike lanes are not safe in shared ROW's,
ticket bikers more often for infractions, reduce bike lanes, emphasize tr ails or paths for
pedestrians, to walk downtown or shopping areas, don't continue wasting money on
underused bikes in major streets
Attachment C
Page 57 of 62
• We walk a lot and we do not drive very much. I had trouble answering this survey as there
were only options for driving alone.
• Mainly that the dedicated bike lanes can be, or are, confusing to drivers because they are
largely unfamiliar. Also, the pedestrian crossing on Broad Street is very confusing to drivers
due to the unfamiliar and ambiguous stop light display system. Lastly, the pedestrian
crossing on Tank Farm Road east of Broad Street that employs blinking yellow indicator
lights, vehicles still do not stop more often than not, making it a very dangerous crossing
irrespective of the lfashing lights.
• No
• We should have rode tax for bicycles if they are getting so much on our roads!
• Bus service from Broad St. to Higuera via Tank Farm Rd.
• please put in more speed bumps on Augusta St. for the safety of elementary school kids
• Were possible, I would like to see more dedicated bike lanes/paths that do not share the
road with cars. When sharing a road, I prefer traditional bike lines with painted lines and not
a series of concrete curb mazes. Walking downtown is ifne, the determent is the parking
policies and cost.
• I am not pleased with the new bike lanes were built! They are hard for the elderly using
walkers and should be removed
• I think that bike lanes are important and make most sense on large arterial roads, but
separated bike lanes on local residential streets is over the top and a waste of money. What
has been implemented in the Anholm area was a mistake. Curbs will not stop an errant car..
• Bicyclists should be cited by police oiffcers when they run red lights, stop signs, etc.
• More cheaper downtown parking
• Bikers consider themselves for cars and pedestrians! Enforcing bike
• homelessness causes a big problem on some trails
Attachment C
Page 58 of 62
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
Mass Transportation Committee
Agenda Report
For Agenda of: 5/14/2025
Item Number: Click or tap here to enter text.
FROM: Alexander Fuchs, Mobility Services Business Manager
Phone Number: (805) 783-7877
E-mail: afuchs@slocity.org
SUBJECT: SLO TRANSIT UPDATE – MAY 2025
RECOMMENDATION
Receive Information
DISCUSSION
SLO Transit’s Short-Range Transit Plan Adoption
On April 15, 2025, City Council adopted SLO Transit’s FY 2026-30 Short-Range Transit
Plan1. The plan includes the service, fare, and program recommendations listed below.
The recommendations were developed through extensive community engagement
process over an 18-month period that included in-person and online surveys, stakeholder
and community workshops, public meetings, and direct outreach to community
organizations.
Service Changes
FY 2025-26
Reinstate services to pre-pandemic levels
Increase Routes 4A/B service frequency
Revise Routes 2A/B to serve San Luis Ranch and to reduce headways to 45-
minutes
FY 2026-27
Modify academic service to align with Cal Poly’s transition to a semester system
Operate B Routes on weekends
New direct route to serve Avila Ranch development
FY 2027-28
Microtransit pilot program to supplement evening service
FY 2028-29
Provide academic service year-round to align with Cal Poly’s planned schedule for
year-round semester system
1 Item 6c. Adoption of SLO Transit's Short-Range Transit Plan
Page 59 of 62
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
Fares and Programs
Maintain existing fare and pass rates
Eliminate 5-Day and 7-Day pass options
Expand the Downtown Access Pass program’s geographic boundaries
The adopted plan will inform the development of five-years of fiscally constrained
operating and capital budgets for FY 2025 -26 through FY 2029-30. Operating and capital
budgets provided by the plan are being incorporated into the 2025 -27 Financial Plan
processing currently underway.
Approval of SLO Transit Fare Rates
On April 15, 2025, Council approved SLO Transit’s fare rates2 effective June 1, 2025 as
shown in Table 1. The approval formalized the K-12 discounted 15-Ride pass and
elimination of the 5-Day and 7-Day passes. Elimination of the 5-Day and 7-Day passes
are a recommendation of the Short-Range Transit Plan to simplify the number of pass
options. These changes were supported by the Mass Transportation Committee. All other
fares and passes will remain the same and available for purchase.
Table 1: SLO Transit Fare Rates Effective 6/1/2025
Fare Type Rate
Regular $1.50
Senior/Disabled/K-12 Student $0.75
VIP (Seniors 80+) $0.00
Children (under 5) $0.00
Pass Type Rate
31-Day Regular $40.00
31-Day Student (K-12) $25.00
31-Day Senior/Disabled $20.00
16-Ride Regular $24.00
15-Ride Senior/Disabled/K-12 Student $11.25
3-Day $7.00
1-Day $3.25
Regional Day Pass $5.50
Open-loop Payment Project Implementation
SLO Transit’s Transit Innovation Study3 recommends pursing open-loop payments in
coordination with San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and San Luis
Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) through California’s Integrated Travel Project.
An open-loop payment system allows riders to pay with contactless payment options like
Google Pay and Apple Pay through on -board payment acceptance devices as shown in
2 Resolution No. 11555 (2025 Series)
3 SLO Transit Innovation Study
Page 60 of 62
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
Figure 1. The payment devices integrate with a transit processing software to calculate
fares and allows contactless payment users to b enefit from “fare capping” technology.
SLOCOG applied for and was approved to allocate funding for the implementation of a
region-wide open-loop payment system project. In August 2024, a working group was
formed to develop and release a scope of work, review vendor proposals, and discuss
integrations with existing systems needed for project implementation.
Figure 1: Contactless Payment Device
On May 20, 2025, Council will consider amending an existing cooperative agreement with
SLOCOG to include the open-loop payment project so the City can be reimbursed for
associated costs as well as approving sole source agreements with multiple vendors for
hardware and software needed to fully implement the project.
If approved and agreements are executed, it will take approximately 60 days to receive
the hardware then installation and configuration can begin. Staff anticipates the system
will be ready for launch on a region-wide basis by the end of calendar year 2025.
Summer Youth Ride Free Participation
SLO Transit is participating in Rideshare’s Youth Ride Free campaign this summer.
Beginning June 9, 2025 through August 15, 2025, K -12 students can ride SLO Transit’s
fixed routes for free. RTA and Morro Bay Transit are also participants which means
students can ride throughout the county at no cost to them. Rideshare has distributed
flyers (Figure 2) to over 40 organizations throughout the county promoting the campaign
and are running advertisements in seven digital/print media outlets. SLO Transit is cross
promoting the campaign via social media, press release, community events, on -bus
postings, and our website.
Page 61 of 62
Item Click or tap here to enter text.
Figure 2: 2025 Summer Youth Ride Free Flyer
Upcoming Community Engagement Events
SLO Transit staff participate in multiple community engagement events throughout the
year to promote the environmental, financial, and social benefits of public transit. In April,
staff attended Cal Poly’s Open House, SLO Earth Fest, and celebrated National Get On
Board Day.
Staff are currently planning for National Public Works Week taking place May 18 -24.
Agencies across the country use National Public Works Week to energize and educate
the public on the importance of public works to their daily lives . This year’s theme is
People, Purpose, and Presence. On May 22, 2025, the City and other agencies will be at
Farmers’ Market engaging with the public, handing out swag, and sharing information
about on-going and upcoming work efforts.
Page 62 of 62