Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/30/1994, 10 - TROLLEY SERVICE EVALUATION IIIYAI���IIIpfI lA'�III t� MEETING DATE: lul I��II I'Y�'al�ll�l Cit/ of S� I S OBI SPO ITEM NUMBER: w uu COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT /o FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Director of blic Wor� Harry Watson, Transit Manager N THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO SUBJECT: Trolley Service Evaluation _ �o_q40( CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion, direct staff to continue the trolley operations in its present form as to routing, hours per day, and days per week DISCUSSION: During the 1993-95 budget process, Council established as a goal: "Evaluation of the existing trolley program for determination as to ways of enhancing its effectiveness as a transportation service". BACKGROUND: Due to the early success of the.trolley, the City Council received multiple requests for expanded service. Knowing of financial constraints to unlimited service expansion, the City Council directed as a part of the 1993-95 goal setting process that: an evaluation of the existing trolley program be conducted to determine if there are ways of enhancing its effectiveness as a transportation service. Requests for use of the trolley are most frequently received from: A. Olive Street motel owners (for Thursday night service) B. Upper Monterey Street motel owners (currently receive Thursday night service) C. Mall D. Special events such as wedding receptions,birthdays,store sales events, and real estate sales tours. As a result of these requests,City Council adopted on December 7, 1993 a policy that transit vehicles and the trolley will only be used for SLO Transit routes.and City activities. Enhancing Service Key ways to enhance service are: A. Cut costs (be more efficient); use savings to expand service. B. Increase the budget and increase service. A) One proposed. way of cutting costs would be to make the existing trolley service seasonal. The cost savings realized during the period of non-operation could be used to provide enhanced service during the period of operation. This could be multiple trolleys on the same downtown circulator route, or single trolleys on multiple routes. /r7 - M; city of SM tins OBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Trolley Page TWo B) By increasing the budget, additional trolley service could be provided. 'hvo ways to increase the budget are: 1. Increase funding. a)Increase TDA allocation; additional Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds would have to be offset by an equal reduction in bus transit funding. This is not a viable alternative because of Council's previous direction to increase bus service to reduce headways (waiting time between buses). b) Increase transit funding using the General Fund;general fund support of the trolley would require decreased funding of other programs in the City and is not recommended. 2. Charge for service. Three possible ways to apply a charge for service are: a) a farebox charge of 10 cents or 25 cents could be charged to riders,.and b) an assessment district could be developed whereby property owners along the trolleys route could be charged to offset the cost of the trolleys operation, and c) business owners along the trolleys route could be charged to offset the cost of the trolleys operation. Survey Results In order to get a better idea of our ability and success potential to expand service without any new City budgeting, staff did a rider survey and a business owner survey. The results are shown on Attachment I. The results show no increased ridership would result by adding new routes;no willingness of business to financially support increased service, and only slight support for a paying ridership. Assuming a fare were charged, the new funding created would be so minor in nature as to prohibit service increases, and would contradict the Council policy of reserving the backup trolley for just that purpose. Using the back-up trolley on a regular.bus route as a promotional tool for bus transit has also been explored. It has not been pursued due to the concern of using our back-up trolley as a second route trolley. Additionally, the trolley does not have the required capacity necessary on four out of five of our current bus routes. Finally, one trolley is not built for the kind of wear a regular route would produce and thus such service would result in an unacceptable level of service to the trolley. Therefore given the current funding budget, lack of response/support for additional private sector funding (business or riders), staff cannot support increased service at this time and additionally it does not appear that any rearrangement of existing routes or times of service would increase ridership. Until additional funding becomes available, service levels should remain at their current levels. la - city or San LUIS OBISpo ni;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Trolley Page Three FISCAL MWACT: There will be no fiscal impact to the transit fund. CONCURRENCE: The Mass Transportation Committee and the Business Improvement Association concur with staff recommendation. Attachment: survey tmfleyMwi /0 - Attachment 1 Survey Results Two surveys were undertaken to sample both the riders of the trolley and the business community. From the riders, we wanted to know why they were using the trolley and how they thought we should improve the service. From the business community, we wanted to know how they would like to seethe service improved as well as its effectiveness to their businesses. The Survey Included in the eight item questionnaire were questions on modes of travel to get to town, parking, why downtown was chosen, fare questions and finally service improvement questions. On the business inquiry, questions were asked about the trolley as a business asset, who should pay for the service, service expansion (area and hours), and if service had to be reduced, how should that occur. As with any questionnaire, not all respondents replied to all questions, so the gross numbers of responses were different, but the percentages will relate to total responses received. The Results. Rider Survev Each of the eight questions is shown below,with the responses and the percentage selecting each response. 1. How did you get downtown today? (check one box) Private Vehicle = 57% Bus = 17% Bicycle = 1% Walk = 16% Other = 12% 2. If you arrived in a private vehicle, where did you get on the trolley? Near where I parked = 37% /0 Along the street while walking = 4967c Other = 15% 3. If you arrived in a private vehicle, how many times will you move your car while visiting the downtown? Once = 22% Twice = 11% More often = 5% Don't know = 8% I will not move my car = 54% 4. Did you plan to use the trolley when you came downtown? Yes = 56% No = 44% S. Why are you in the downtown? Shopping = 26% Recreation = 23% Errands = 10% Eating = 20% Other = 21 6. Would you ride the trolley if there was a fare? Yes = 72% if it were $.10= 249o, $.25= 319o', $35= 1167o, $S0= 1617o, other 18%. No = 28% 7. What are some of the reasons why you ride the trolley? It's fun to ride = 3117b, It's easier than walking = 22%, It's a nice way to see downtown = 2717b, I can park farther away from where I want to go = 119o', Other = 9% S. Would you ride the trolley more often if...(Check one or more box and fill in blanks) The trolley also served other areas, such as = 24% Central Coast Plaza was chosen two to one over Payless and upper Monterey. Destinations outside of the City limits placed fourth If I didn't have to wait as long to catch the trolley = 20% If the trolley started earlier in the morning = 14% If the trolley kept running later in the evening = 11% If the trolley ran during holidays and special events = 13515 Other = 7% 10-60 I would not ride the trolley more often = 11% The Results. Business Survey As with the Rider survey, each of the six questions is shown below with the percentage of respondents that choose each answer. 1. Does the Trolley help attract customers to your business? Yes, because = 41% No, because = 54% Undecided = 3% The yes comments were very positive such as. "adds charm and character to SLO, keeps bringing people back to my business, a real Parking asse4 adds to historical flavor, facilitates shopper shopping all over downtown, people enjoy it and they tell us". The no comments were heavily dominated by comments such as "we are not a retail store (attorney, accountant, Doctor office etc.), service is too expensive, it doesn't solve the parking problem, does not mai in our area". 2. Should downtown business owners help pay for operating the trolley? Yes = 22% (yes 10% = 5001b; yes 20% = 13%; yes 30% = 0%; yes 50% = 25%) No = 78% 3. Should people who ride the trolley pay a fare? Yes =54% {$.10 = 2695, $.25 = 48%, $.35 = 017b, $SO = 16% No = 25% 4.Should trolley operations be expanded? Yes = 51% Of the yes answers, 22% -Connect with other business areas, such as Madonna. Laguna. Foothill etc. 8% - Circulate more frequently 11% - Start earlier in the morning 16% - Keep running later in the evening 29% - Run during holidays and special events (we currently do) 14% - Other {more trolleys naming at the same time, weekend motel routing, Madonna Svc., make downtown pedestrian.only accept for the trolley, etc. No = 49% S. Should business owners pay for the cost of expanding trolley service? /n� Yes = 22% {1017o = 5617o, 209o' = 11%, 509o' = 0%, 75% = 0 %, 100% = 22%) No = 78% 6. If the City has to reduce trolley service because of lack of funds, what service might be eliminated? Weekday service, such as: (Mon-Tue.-Wed: Mon-Fri: seasonable'• = 34% Weekend service = 19% Hours of operation = 16% Other ideas: summer only discontinue all together: MaintainFri_day through Sunday plus Christmas service only: = 19% I would be willing to help pay the cost of the existing trolley service if it meant that the service would be retained. = 10% CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the trolley service is well received by both the riders and the businesses. Both groups favor expansion with frequency of service and areas served being the most requested. If service had to be reduced, both favored protecting the tourist and holiday season service. The riders see the service as an adjunct to parking and a convenience to shopping in the downtown. A slight majority of the riders said they would pay a fare and a slight majority of the businesses said a fare should be charged, with both groups agreeing on $.25 or less. The business community felt it should not pay for either the existing service nor any expansion of the service. utfrpm lo-7