HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2003, PH 4 - ADOPTION OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 1 i
Dw
council M.�Au
j Ac,Enaa Report
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Tim Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Austin O'Dell, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Adopt the Short Range Transit Plan, with modifications, as recommended by the Mass
Transportation Committee and endorsed by the Planning Commission
2. Approve the fare policy as recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee and
endorsed by the Planning Commission
3. Approve the Negative Declaration as recommended by the Planning Commission
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Support the recommendations of the Mass Transportation Committee and Planning
Commission with the following exceptions:
a. Set the cost of a Regular Pass at$30.00 rather than $27.00
b. Set the fare for the trolley at $.25 per trip rather than $.50, with transfers and passes to be
considered at a later time
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is a planning document that evaluates the overall health of
the transit system and provides service recommendations to improve the transit service. The
following list highlights the major accomplishments of the recommended SRTP:
■ Maintains service to the Prado Day Center.
■ Greatly improves service to Cal Poly by creating a"Cal Poly Circulator" route.
■ Provides more direct and frequent service.
• Improves the schedule to be more "user-friendly" and easier to remember.
■ Reinstates evening service.
■ Makes more effective use of the trolley service.
• Improves bus stop locations and creates a Bus Stop Masterplan
The Draft SRTP, with initial Consultant recommendations, was presented to various City advisory
bodies, as well as to the public in a series of open house meetings. Overall,the public supported the
recommended changes in the Draft SRTP. There were two areas of significant concern: opposition
to any recommendation that discontinued service to the Prado Day Center until new pedestrian
,A4 - (
i�
Council Agenda Report—Short Range Transit Plan
Page 2
linkages can be provided to Higuera Street and any recommendation that included evening service
on Oceanaire Drive.
After evaluating these public comments and comparing the new service costs to expected revenue,
staff developed revised recommendations for the Draft SRTP for the Mass Transportation
Committee (MTC) to consider. These revised recommendations were prepared in a "White Paper"
titled Proposed Final Recommendations for the 2003 Short Range Transit Plan and were taken to
the MTC on July 9, 2003. These recommendations enable the City to greatly improve the transit
service while addressing the financial concerns of limited revenue sources.
Overall, the MTC accepted staff's recommendations but made some additional changes. The main
changes are highlighted below:
1. Increase the cost of Regular Passes from the current $24.00 to $27.00, with the possibility of
an additional $3.00 increase if necessary to offset the cost of evening service. Increase the
Senior/Disable Pass from $7.50 to $10.00. In exchange, no surcharge for evening service
would be charged.
2. Charge $0.50 on the trolley, instead of$0.25 and accept passes and transfers on the trolley
3. Redefine Peak Service from Labor Day to June 15"'
4. Start Route 6 at 7:30 a.m., instead of 6:00 a.m.
These additional changes were reviewed by staff and then compiled into the final recommendations
for the SRTP. As identified in this report, staff concurs with all but two of the MTC recommended
changes.
Staff s recommendations are to:
1. Adopt the Short Range Transit Plan, and
2. Approve and incorporate into the Short Transit Plan, the service changes recommended in
Option E of the White Paper with MTC recommendations as modified, and
3. Approve the following fare schedule:
Cash Category Fare Pass Fare
Regular $ 1.00 Regular $30.00
Senior/Disabled $ 0.50 Senior/Disabled $10.00
Trolley* $0.25 * No transfers and passes
The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft SRTP for General Plan Consistency and
environmental initial study on August 13, 2003. Overall, the Planning Commission was supportive
of the improvements in the SRTP and recommended the negative declaration and adoption of the
SRTP. The Planning Commission also recommended that a pedestrian connection be made
between the Prado Day Center and South Higuera before eliminating the bus stop at the Prado Day
Center.
Finally, the revised staff recommendations for the SRTP allow the Transit Fund to remain in a
positive cash flow during the entire planning period.
Council Agenda Report—Short Range Transit Plan
Page 3
DISCUSSION
Background
What is the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)?
The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is a planning document that analyzes the operational and
financial health of the City's transit operations. The Plan reviews the current state of the transit
system; profiles existing transit users; proposes changes to improve the system; and provides
service, financial and capital plans for a 10-year timeframe. State transit regulations mandate that
the SRTP be reviewed every five years or the City suffesr potential loss of transit funding. The
current SRTP was adopted in 1997.
This SRTP has been under development for the past year. A short description of how the proposed
SRTP was developed is provided in Attachment 1 and a description of the service changes and the
significant components of the document are summarized in Attachment 2.
Public Comment
The Draft SRTP with the Consultant recommendations was presented at a number of workshops for
the public and various advisory committee meetings. Many opportunities were offered for public
comment on the SRTP (see Attachment 4, MTC Staff Report). Of the approximately 200 comments
received, a significant amount were opposed to the discontinuation of service to the Prado Day
Center and the re-establishment of evening service along the Oceanaire neighborhood. Overall,
attendees supported the evening serviceandthe other recommended changes.
Staffs Recommendation to MTC
After reviewing the public comments and comparing service costs to projected revenue in the Draft
SRTP, it was necessary for staff to develop options to the Consultant recommendations that would:
■ Achieve a balanced budget
■ Meet farebox recovery requirements
■ Continue service to the Prado Day Center
• Reroute the evening service from Oceanaire Drive.
On July 9, 2003, staff presented the MTC with a White Paper (The complete rite Paper is
available in the Council Reading File) that described five options with alternative service levels,
and recommended Option E for their consideration (Attachment 3). In essence Option E proposes
the following:
a. Revise Route 1. This eliminates service on Highland Drive to the Cal Poly Agriculture
Building. This change decreases headways from 76 minutes to 60 minutes and allows
buses to arrive at consistent time throughout the day.
-� - 3
r
1 � 1
Council Agenda Report—Short Range Transit Plan
Page 4
b. Implement a Revised Route 2. The revised route would implement more direct service
between Downtown and South Higuera; eliminate service to Cal Poly; and continue service
to Prado Day Center via Elks Lane and Prado Road. This change will maintain the
headways at 40 minutes all day.
c. Revised Route 3. This eliminates service to Cal Poly and the Airport (This service change
will be implemented on September 1, 2003). This change will improve headways from 72
minutes to 30 minutes.
d. Route 4. No changes are proposed to the Route 4.
e. Route 5. No changes are proposed to the Route 5.
f. Implement a new Route 6. Two subroutes—6a and 6b will comprise the new route. These
will be targeted to high student areas (e.g. Foothill Road, Highland Drive, Mill Street) and
provide service directly to Cal Poly. The Route 6a will serve the North Foothill/Highland
Drive area providing service to Cal Poly. The Route 6b serves the Mill Street area providing
service to Cal Poly and Downtown.
g. Introduce peak period and non-peak period service. To better serve Cal Poly, greater
service (peak periods) during the fall, winter and spring quarters will be introduced. Peak
period service is proposed from October 1 to.June 30, and non-peak period service from July
1 to September 30.
h. New Evening Service. This implements two new evening routes between 6:30 p.m. and
8:30 p.m. The two routes, southwest and southeast, were chosen to provide the greatest
service to the areas most identified as possible users. The Southwest Route will serve South
Higuera Street, Los Osos Valley Road, Descanso Road, and Madonna Road. The Southeast
Route serves the Broad Street, Johnson Street, and Orcutt Road areas providing connecting
to downtown.
i. Trolley. Modify the trolley route to provide a direct link between Upper Monterey Street
and the downtown. (This service change will be implemented on September 1, 2003). This
change would establish the trolley as the main connection between the hotel row and
downtown by targeting tourists staying in hotels on Monterey Street desiring to visit the
downtown area.
j. Evening Service Performance Standard. Because of financial considerations and the need
to meet a 20% farebox ratio on the transit system, and considering the past failure of evening
.service to provide any farebox (i.e. extremely low ridership), a financial benchmark is
recommended to evaluate service. The proposed benchmark requires that evening service
must maintain a ten percent farebox ratio for the operating costs associated to evening
service and must achieve a minimum of twelve passengers per revenue vehicle hour, while
the system as a whole maintains a farebox ratio of twenty percent at the end of the fiscal
year. Failure to achieve these standards within twelve months from implementation will
require staff to modify or discontinue the service in accordance with the SRTP.
k. Trolley Performance Standard. Because trolley service is not considered an essential
service, a benchmark is also needed for trolley service. The benchmark is that trolley
service must maintain a minimum of twenty percent farebox ratio for the operating costs
associated to the trolley service or must achieve a minimum average of twenty four
passengers per revenue vehicle hour. Failure to achieve these standards within twelve
months from implementation will require the City to review the service and implement
necessary modifications in accordance with the SRTP.
44
Council Agenda Report—Short Range Transit Plan
Page 5
1. Fare Policy. In order to meet 20% farebox ratio requirements, increase the regular cash fare
to $1.00 and the Senior/Disabled Cash fare to $0.50. Introduce a premium fare of$0.50 for
all riders using evening routes. Introduce a new fee of$0.25 per person for trolley riders.
The list below summarizes the major differences between the Consultant's recommendations and
Option E above:
a. Revised Route 2 continues to operate every 40 minutes. The Consultant recommended that the
Revised Route 2 no longer serve the Prado Day Center and should operate every 20 minutes
during peak commute periods.
b. Evening Service operates Mondays through Thursdays and has no service on Oceanaire Drive
(which the consultant had recommended).
c. New Route 6 operates every 60 minutes on Fridays and Saturdays with no service on Sundays.
The consultant had recommended that this route operate every 30 minutes on Fridays and 60
minutes on Saturdays and Sundays.
MTC's Consideration and Revised Recommendations
The MTC thoroughly discussed the draft SRTP and recommendations on July 9, 2003. Minutes of
MTC's July 9, 2003 are provided in Attachment 5. The MTC concurred with staffs recommendations
for Option E with the following modifications.
Fare Charges for Evening Service. The MTC did not want to rely on the special fare for evening
service, because it penalizes pass riders and may discourage riders wanting to use evening service.
The MTC recommended an increase to Regular Passes from the current $24.00 to $27.00, with the
possibility of an additional $3.00 increase ($30.00 maximum) if necessary to offset the cost of
evening service. In addition, the passes would be honored on both day and evening services. They
also recommended increasing the Senior/Disabled pass to $10.00 from the current cost of$7.50..
Fare Changes/Accept Passes and Transfers on the Trolley (item I above). The MTC wants the
trolley to financially contribute more to the transit system. As a solution, the MTC recommends a
$.50 fare for the trolley. Also, the MTC recommended that the trolley accept passes and transfers
from other routes to encourage ridership.
Start Service with In-Bound Trips (new). Traditionally, service has started from the Downtown
Transit Center, picking up passengers to the end of the route (referred to as an outbound trip). The
MTC recommended that buses begin their first trip from the end of the routes and pick up riders on
the way into town (an inbound trip) on the first run of the day. This may mean the scheduled stops
would be extended as much as one half hour in advance for peak trips at little or no increased cost.
Redefine Peak Service from Labor Day to June 15th The MTC recommended modifying the peak
period service to better correspond with the Cal Poly academic year. The SRTP introduces a peak
period service when Route 6 will operate more frequently than during the summer.
Start Route 6 at 7:30 a.m. (item f above). The MTC did not agree with starting the new Route 6 at
6:00 a.m. Instead, the MTC recommended to start at 7`.30 a.m. to better correspond to the Cal
Poly's class schedule. (Note: While this should allow students to get to campus on time for the start
tet'''
Council Agenda Report—Short"Range Transit Plan
Page 6
of classes, it is probably insufficient for faculty and staff. On the other hand, due to the start of
service with inbound trips recommended above, faculty and staff living near Route 6 may be able to
get to work on time by riding the inbound bus and arriving at Cal Poly at 7:30 a.m.
Study the Service Changes 6 Months after Implementation (new). The MTC is interested in the
performance of the service changes. The MTC would like to compare key performance indicators
after six months of the new service.
Study Feasibility of a Youth Fare (new). The MTC discussed the possibility of offering a youth
fare. Staff expressed its concern with offering a youth fare without analyzing the financial impact to
the transit system. The MTC recommended that staff study the feasibility of a youth fare at a later
time.
Evaluation of MTC Recommendations
Staff thoroughly evaluated the MTC's recommendations and their potential financial impact to the
transit system. Staff determined that Option E and the MTC's recommendations could be
accommodated with two minor modifications to the MTC's recommendations.
Pass Fares. After analyzing the MTC's recommendation, staff determined that the cost of a
Regular Pass must be increased to $30.00 and a Senior/Disabled Pass to $10.00 to maintain an
acceptable farebox ratio and allow the City to remain eligible for state funding. The only other
alternative would be not to implement evening service at this time or find another fare increase
mechanism.
Staff is recommending that these fares be established at this time in order to meet the service
objectives of the SRTP. If daytime ridership declines significantly due to these fare increases, this
issue will need to be addressed in subsequent years.
Trolley Service. Because this will be the first time a fare will be charged to ride the trolley, staff is
concerned that the MTC recommended $0.50 fare would not be successful in establishing riders for
the new service. Staff therefore recommends that the $0.25 fare be established and that service be
monitored (as proposed in the benchmarks) to determine system success. Staff will monitor the
trolley service and report to the MTC for future action. Staff also recommends that the issue of
passes and transfers on the trolley be analyzed after the new service is established in order to gauge
demand of this proposal.
MTC and Staff Recommendations
Combining both the MTC and staff final recommendations, we recommend that the City Council:
1. Adopt the Short Range Transit Plan, and
2. Approve and incorporate in to the Short Transit Plan, the service changes recommended in
Option E of the White Paper with MTC recommendations as modified above, and
3. Approve the following fare schedule:
`��to
Council Agenda Report—Short Range Transit Plan
Page 7
Cash Category Fare Pass Fare
Regular $ 1.00 Regular $30.00
Senior/Disabled $ 0.50 Senior/Disabled $10.00
Trolley* $0.25 * No transfers and passes
Planning Commission Review
In 2002, the City Council determined that the Planning Commission should review and comment on
certain key City transportation planning documents that had not been previously under the
Commission's purview. In response to this new responsibility, the Planning Commission reviewed
the SRTP with focus on General Plan consistency, the environmental initial study, and other general
planning comments. To assist the Planning Commission, staff provided the Commissioners with an
analysis of transit related issues in the General Plan (see Attachment 6, General Plan Consistency),
and planning issues, so the Commission would not confuse its responsibilities with the operational
issues (e.g. such as bus scheduling, purchasing vehicles and equipment, length of buses,
determining fares, maintaining vehicles, marketing, performance standards, and other services) that
are under the purview of the MTC and City Council.
On August 13, 2003 the Planning Commission reviewed the Short Range Transit Plan and the
environmental initial study prepared for the project (see Attachment 6). The Planning Commission
was supportive of the City's efforts to improve transit service and unanimously recommended
approval of the Negative Declaration and adoption of the Short Range Transit Plan. Additionally,
the Planning Commission recommended that a pedestrian connection between the Prado Day Center
and South Higuera Street be constructed before elimination of the bus stop at the Prado Day Center.
Minutes are not yet available for the Planning Commission's August 13, 2003 meeting; however, a
summary of the Planning Commission's recommendation is provided in Attachment 8.
CONCURRENCES
The Mass Transportation Committee and the Planning Commission recommend that the Council
adopt the Short Range Transit Plan with modifications.
The Downtown Association has not taken a formal position on the proposed Short Range Transit
Plan. Based on discussions with the Downtown Association's Executive Director, members have
expressed support for the changes for the trolley service providing direct service between the
downtown and "hotel row". The Chamber of Commerce's Tourism Council also supports this
change.
FISCAL MACTS
Two fiscal issues are key for the City Council: Transit fund balance and farebox ratio. As the transit
fund is an enterprise fund it cannot be in deficit at the end of the year. Fares collected, along with
Federal and State funding, must be greater than operating and capital expenses. Based on "no fare
changes"the summary of the Transit Fund in Attachment 10,Table 1, shows that the Transit Fund was
14-9
Council Agenda Report—Short Range Transit Plan
Page S
projected to fall into deficit in Years 2, 3, and 4. In Year 5,the Transit Fund would recover and remain
whole.
Incorporating MTC's and staff recommendations, the Transit Fund's balance is projected to remain
positive during the entire planning period, shown in Attachment 10, Tables 2 and 3. The budget was
balanced by utilizing four strategies. The first strategy was to reduce service from 20 minute to 40
minute headways on the new Route 2. The second strategy was to reduce the calculated operating
expenses for SLO Transit by diverting operating costs as capital costs associated with contracting, as
permitted by the Federal Transit Administration. The third strategy was to increase fare revenue as
proposed. Finally,the capital improvement program was spread over the life of the plan.
As seen in Attachment 10, Table 4,the City receives approximately$1.49 million dollars per year from
the State (TDA), which represents the largest portion of transit funding. In order to receive those
funds, a farebox ratio (farebox fares/operating expenses) of 20% must be maintained or the funds will
be withdrawn. As illustrated in the Financial Plan in Attachment 9, the fare increases in combination
with the other strategies achieves the 20% farebox ratio. Because City Council has yet to act on these
issues, the current Financial Plan does not reflect these numbers. Staff will amend the necessary
budget items to be consistent with the SRTP as part of the mid-year budget review.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A — City Council could choose to delay the adoption of the SRTP. There would be
several consequences to not adopting the SRTP. The first consequence could be a delay in
implementing necessary service improvements. The City is currently below the farebox ratio
required by state law. Further delay may result in the withholding of necessary operating dollars.
The second consequence of this alternative is that it can delay the programming of federal funds.
Alternative B. City Council may decide to modify the recommendations. The consequence to this
alternative is that it may require additional analysis by staff and delay adoption. Any delay to the
adoption of the SRTP may have funding and programming consequences similar to Alterative A.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Development of the Short Range Transit Plan
Attachment 2: Significant Components of the SRTP
Attachment 3: Option E from Proposed Final Recommendations 2003 SRTP
Attachment 4: Staff Report to the Mass Transportation Commission, July 9, 2003
Attachment 5: Minutes to the MTC July 9, 2003 Meeting
Attachment 6: General Plan Consistency
Attachment 7: Environmental Initial Study
Attachment 8: Summary of Planning Commission's Final Recommendations
Attachment 9: Financial Plan with MTC Recommendations
Attachment 10: Fiscal Impact Tables
Attachment 11: Resolution
�-g
Council Agenda Report—Short Range Transit Plan
Page 9
A copy of the DRAFT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN was distributed in advance for
Council review.
Council Reading File
The complete White Paper, Proposed Final Recommendations for the 2003 Short Range Transit
Plan is available in the Council Reading File..
I:\_Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review(Bochum)\Transit CAR-
SRTP Adoption,August 26,2003-Version 2 PRE-PRODUCTION.DOC
4,V
�i
ATTACHMENT 1
DEVELOPMENT THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
First Step: Hire a consultant
The City Council approved the solicitation for the preparation of the Short Range Transit
Plan(SRTP) at their November 6, 2001 meeting. Staff received three proposals and
selected Urbitran Incorporated as the most responsive proposer. Urbitran was charged
with reviewing the financial and operating health of San Luis Obispo, conducting an on-
board origin/destination study,preparing a master bus stop plan, and developing service
modification recommendations. Urbitran has developed short-term changes (1-2 years),
mid-term changes (2-3 years), and long-term changes (4-5 years). For the purposes of
this report, the discussion will focus on the short-term changes. Mid and long-term
recommendations will remain as detailed in the SRTP draft dated April 2003.
Second Step: Get MTC Input and develop a first working paper
Participation from the Mass Transportation Committee. The Mass Transportation
Committee assigned members to the Short Range Transit Plan Ad hoc Committee to
review and provide input in the development of the working papers from the Consultant.
This was an important function of the Mass Transportation Committee to insure their
concerns were being addressed.
Working Papers from the Consultant. The Consultant prepared two working papers
for the Short Range Transit Plan Ad Hoc Committee to review. The first working paper
discussed the existing conditions of San Luis Obispo Transit and detailed the findings
from the on-board origin/destination survey. The second working paper presented the
Consultant's initial recommendations for service modifications to the Short Range
Transit Ad Hoc Committee to review. After receiving comments from the Ad Hoc
Committee, the Consultant prepared a Draft for the public to provide comments. The full
Mass Transportation Committee reviewed this Draft at its March 26, 2003 meeting.
Third Step: Get Public Input
Public Input Meetings. The Consultant prepared the Draft Short Range Transit Plan
that was available for the public to review and to make comments. The public comment
period was from April 15, 2003 through May 19, 2003. Copies of the plan were available
at: City Hall, Public Works Administration, City/County Library, and the Kennedy
Library at Cal Poly.
There were four open house meetings conducted by the City to educate the public and to
receive comments. Two open house meetings were conducted at the San Luis Lounge at
Cal Poly on May 1, 2003. The morning meeting was from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and
the afternoon meeting was from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The remaining meetings were
L\_Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review
(Bochum)\Transit CAR-SRTP Adoption ATTACHMENTS.DOC
conducted at the Meeting Room at the City/County Library on May 15, 2003. The day
meeting was from 11:00 am. to 1:00 p.m., and the evening meeting was from 7:00 p.m.
to 9:00 p.m. Over 220 comments were received.
Other Meetings. The Transit Manager also presented the Short Range Transit Plan to
the Low Vision Council, the Chamber of Commerce's Tourism Council, and the Human
Relations Commission.
Fourth Step: Produce Final Document, Review with MTC, Planning Commission and
City Council.
l:\_Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review
(Bochum)\Transit CAR-SRTP Adoption ATTACHMENTS.DOC �(
ATTACHMENT 2
SIGNIFICANT COMPONENTS OF THE SRTP
The most significant sections of this SRTP focus on the short term service changes and
passengers amenities. These topics are highlighted below:
1. 'Short-Term-Service Changes. . The, overall all objective of the this section is to
. .improve. the.service,and increase ridership by making the.city bus.service a.more
_
attractive°alternative to the private automobile: The preparation of the SRTP included
an.on-board-survey-and analysis .to determine the.appropriate changes. ._From .this .
analysis, the Consultant.developed short term service changes..that include evening
service; and-routing-and.:schedule-improvements. ,.:Staff modified the Consultant's
recommendation to better reflect the community's needs asa result from the public
input meetings. •Staff recommended Option E in Attachment 2 of this report.
2. Bus Stop Classifications. ,This section classifies bus stop into four types depending
on the daily activity at each bus stop. The purposeof this,strategy is to standardize
...the bus stops._which will.:.benefit.:all..bus,riders. .Each bus stop-type will include.
specific amenities and are-designed to build on the previous type. For example,'a
Type 1 bus stop will include a transit
sign, and a Type 2 bus stop will include a schedule information display, a bench, and
the amenities from a Type 1 bus stop.
3. Service Stop Schematics. This section standardizes the bus stop layout(e.g. bus stop
signs,.shelters, benches, red curb, trash receptacles, etc.) for developers and planners
to use during the project design,phase. Standard bus stop layouts will also provide
bus riders with consistent.and comfortable bus stops.
4. Bus Stop,Placement Standards. ':There are several planning-issues regarding.bus
...w..stop..placement..standards...The..transit.industry..standard,is..to...place:a.bus stop.-about
every one quarter of a mile, and about every one eighth of a mile in the urban core.
Of course there are .exceptions. to these standards due ,operational and market
considerations. For example, it would.not make sense to place.:a.bus along a dirt.field
- with no housing developments or business where this is not reasonable expectation to
serve passengers (unless the field is being developed.). Another example .of an
exception may be due to driveways or other conditions-that make-it.impossible for a
-.:bus to serve-a-particular-location. To provide'some perspective,.one-quarter of a-mile-
is about the distance from City Hall to the Mission..
It is important to know that the majority of bus riders access bus stops by walking.
The ability for existing and potential bus riders to access and the orientation of the
bus will impact ridership. When discussing bus stop access, what comes to mind is
convenience and ease to get to and from the bus stops. Bus riders need to be able to
access bus stops without unreasonable difficulty and/or unnecessary distance. For
example, sound walls perform the function of reducing noise from major arterials;
L\ Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review 4— If
(Bochumff ransit CAR-SRTP Adoption ATTACHMENTS.DOC / _ I I
however, they can also be a deterrent to encourage bus use. A bus stop can be within
a quarter of a mile from residents, but it may require the potential bus rider a greater
distance to walk around the sound and back tract to the desired bus stop.
Lastly, it is important for bus stops to have proper lengths for buses to be able to
negotiate in and out bus stops. The requirements for lengths of bus stops vary
depending on where the bus stop is located. A bus stop located after an intersection
will require about fifty feet. In contrast, a bus stop located in the,middle of a block or .. .
before_an intersection will require more length to allow the bus to enter the.bus stop .
zone. The-city currently maintains forty foot vehicles in its fleet. The current city
standard for bus.stops is included in Attachment 4.
-,5: :Service Stop Recommendations. Based on the proposed bus•stop°standards,
placement of bus stops, and layout, presents a list of improvements for specific bus
stops.
I:\_Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review
(Bochum)\Transit CAR-SRTP Adoption ATTACHMENTS.DOC
�O U
� V
O R "C7
� N a
y L L d
d
O E E ti O
'C G L
> N >
O G O vOi O h
G.C. N M.
O t>.. 0 C 3
L N
Vf d N Vl 3 rz
O U O
p cr LE O i O cr t
N t t d U
to y U f/1 y V] V)
H V V
ap y F y d7
>1 d 'Q >
CC C
z u � co
a vLZ '9 a L a d L d a CL L
0 0 c o o 0 0 0 0 0 0
cn
E E E E E 8
U YA Y b0 Y A Y R Y R Y Y R Y
Er yO y yO dO0 QJ
CW7 pq _
N V y V N V N N
zA
w
U M o
L a
L p
O U aL U a U aL U a
G==rJ o a> > j v e a3i ami 3 y°.
o _ u3 m Oon_` d = o
Q r `ao > e o cs ami �. d
N N Q L p E O U L G. 0
O 0
y «O
> ,u
m
� U o �
U ' ° � z°' i 0 o y
L N = O
V ON Q d1 'C bU
c. 00 3 L N
0rz 0 _ U E3 5
Ncu O N N -0 O y R V 7 OL H p ld
'9. C O. V .'.z G C'Dd
> O d Q E..� 0 7
0. O 4..L m L LL a� 0 .
d L.. p Q L O .
y s CE a > m
o
tiD euac °' e'oL° en � c -t� � ao
O O L.:��7 O O O = m 0 O O. O O C t N O
0: C4 Uzcaa a � z � y — � O a "oca ' � z
N �'1
� Y
c
L
^3 COto
ti
O d U L U y C
R D y S y '>
O w N y L R y L
3 » a5i '� 3 E
ou
v� cn
> E 8
R a E a a
ri a o c o 0.
ti O D` N M00
c4 R m R vi I T
C R' E, O O. R cd C d
O � � NO � O R V1 7 OO
�O �O G 'O
a, 9. a, > 00 � E
Cd Y R Y > Y o y > a RCc
Y y
oCUo o v o o c u
3 366 � 64 3tL-
y y
7 C O C dq C.dN. N O 'L
C
E .= O G
O O O -p
n Q M >1 y LL Q Q 7 t
R y � y
C Vii C m C R 'J' OD tC C y y C w O
d O d O O.'D
C.�. '' � .0 7 i O C. i .>. CLY
cc
U 1 U ca N V] U i= aE U R G.
cv a C
y —ca ami c L E >0 s 3 R L y �' O > ° m 'cn
Oq N �p C N > y
-o 2 � >, = r o
o x
v q .N7N �.S —
V O O y > >
- 3 m �>, a Q U.. oc, y: ° - 3 0
c. a' U °
c > o N .ao ons y 3c
a' Wo ° Lam- d ° x
N 3 —Fes •> cC O. N U E :? °' t ° `- = s " 3
div d � w > s so °' ,�, o sem°
to eb 5 c 3 d eu U ai ° ° c
R cow $ wt ° ^ ^ oo > u a c 0V
94 z O O 3..� .4 _ O = O +OL+ i = p C � ON
z x yo E= o U Ra �nc7� U .. R
o >
m
0
a E
� Y
C R
r
O =
� O
C
R j C
� vOi O
R „
O
PC �
'O
U H
y = 9
U
V
OO O
a o CF C4 a.)
a p
R H C i C
O O
N L'
o R L 3 L t
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Final Recommendations 2003 SRTP
June 9, 2003 Page 40
OPTION E ROUTE DESPTIONS
General Description. This option assumes the New Route 2 will serve the Prado Day Center
via Elks Lane. This option also assumes that the Evening Southwest service will provided
connecting service from the South Higuera, Los Osos Valley Road, and Madonna Corridors to
downtown San Luis Obispo. This option also separates the associated revenue vehiclemiles and
operating costs attributed to day and evening services. Comparing to Option A, this alignment
for the Evening Southwest service reduces the overall revenue vehicle miles and costs. Fuel
costs have been added in the financial data as a function of the revenue vehicle miles and the
average miles per gallon of the diesel fleet. Please refer to Attachment 6.
Separate financial data illustrates the variance between a$0.50 premium fare for all riders, and a
$1.50 premium fare for all riders. Both scenarios consider a regular cash fare of$1.00, and a
senior/disabled cash fare of$0.50. The net impact is that the service is solvent.
This option is the most drastic approach in that headways are increased on the New Route 2 to
forty minutes. In essence, the peak weekday service is sacrificed for the less productive evening
service.
Route 1-North of Foothill
Proposed Change. The proposed change to Route 1 is to eliminate service on Highland Drive
to the Cal Poly Agriculture Building. This change will shorten the route miles with the intention
to reduce headways from 76 minutes to 60 minutes.
Proposed Alignment. This Route 1 will operate on the following roadways: Osos Street, Palm
Street, Nipomo Street, Marsh Street, Broad Street, Orcutt Road, Southwood Road, Laurel Lane,
Augusta Street, Bishop Street, Johnson Street, Monterey Street, Santa Rosa Street, Mill Street,
and Osos Street.
Days of Operation. The Route 1 will operate on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Route
1 will operate a weekend schedule on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day and Labor Day. This route will not operate on Christmas Day and
Thanksgiving Day.
ATTACHMENT 3
Proposed Final Recommendations 2003 SRTP
June 9, 2003 Page 41
Headways. The Route will operate on the following headways:
Headway
Period Hours (mins)
Weekday
AM Peak 6:00 a.m.—9:00 am. 60
Midday 9:01 a.m. —3:00 p.m. 60
PM Peak 3:01 p.m.—6:29 p.m. 60
Evening No Service
Weekends No Service
Vehicle Requirements. One vehicle will be assigned to operate Route 1.
Route 2—Prado Day Center
Proposed Change. The Short Range Transit Plan initially proposed that the Route 2 serve
South Higuera Street to Auto Park via Los Osos Valley Road. This alignment would require the
elimination of the bus stop near the Prado Day Center on Prado Road. Based on the volume of
public comments received;the proposed final recommendation modifies the Consultant's
recommendation in order to maintain the current service on Prado Road via Elks Lane, and South
Higuera Street. To maintain headways, the outbound terminal point for-the New Route 2 will be
at South Higuera at Suburban. This would eliminate service on Los Osos Valley Road at the Las
Verdes Estates. It was originally thought that Las Verdes Estates generated moderate ridership.
Based on a recent ridership survey, the bus stop only generates two trips per day. Eliminating
this bus stop would not impact ridership on Los Osos Valley Road. The benefit to this
recommendation is that it responds to the public comments to serve Prado Day Center.
Proposed Alignment. This Route 2 will operate on the following roadways:. Osos Street, Palm
Street,Nipomo Street, Pismo Street, South.Higuera Street, Tank Farm, Long Street, Cross Street,
Short Street, Suburban Street, South Higuera, Marsh Street, Santa Rosa Street, Mill Street, and
Osos Street.
Days of Operation. The Route 2 will operate on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and on
weekends from 8:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. Route 2 will operate a weekend schedule on the
following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day. This
route will not operate on Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day.
Proposed Final Recommendations 2003 SRTP ATTACHMENT 3
June 9, 2003 Page 42
Headways. The Route 2 will operate the following headways:
Headway
Period Hours (mins)
Weekday
AM Peak 6:00 a.m.—9:00 a.m. 60
Midday 9:01 a.m.—3:00 p.m. 60
PM Peak 3:01 p.m.—6:29 p.m. 60
Evening 6:30 p.m.—8:30 p.m. No Service
Weekend 8:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m._ 60
Vehicle Requirements. One vehicle will be assigned to Route 2 on weekdays and one vehicle
on weekends.
Route 3-Augusta and Orcutt Corridors
Proposed Change. The proposed change to Route 3 is to eliminate service to Cal Poly and the
Airport. This change will shorten the route miles with the intention to reduce headways from 72
minutes to 30 minutes.
Proposed Alignment. This Route 3 will operate on the following roadways: Osos Street, Palm
Street, Santa Rosa Street, Marsh Street, Johnson Street, Bishop Street, Augusta Street, Laurel
Lane, Orcutt Road, Tank Farm Road, Broad Street, Chorro Street, Mill Street, and Osos Street.
Days of Operation. The Route 3 will operate on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m„ and on
weekends from 8:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. Route 3 will operate a weekend schedule on the
following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day. This
route will not operate on Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day.
Headways. The Route 3 will operate the following headways`
Headway
Period. _ Hours (mins)
Weekday
AM Peak 6:00 a.m.—9:00 a.m. 30
Midday 9:01 a.m. _3:00 p.m. 30
PM Peak 3:01 p.m.—6:29 p.m. 30
Evening 6:30 p.m. —8:30 p.m. No Service
Weekend 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 30
�� Lg
ATTACHMEMT 3
Proposed Final Recommendations 2003 SRTP
June 9, 2003 Page 43
Vehicle Requirements. One vehicle will be assigned to the Route 3 on weekdays and one
vehicle on weekends.
Route 4-Cal Poly, Foothill Road, and Santa Barbara Street
Proposed Change. No changes are proposed to the Route 4. Staff will re-time the route and
strive to reduce the headway from 33/66 minutes to 30/60 minutes.
Proposed Alignment. No change.
Days of Operation. The Route 4 will operate on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and on
weekends from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Route 4 will operate a weekend schedule on the
following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day. This
route will not operate on Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day.
Headways. The Route 4 will operate the following headways:
Headway
Period Hours (mins)l _
Weekday -
AM Peak 6:00 a.m. —9:00 a.m. 30
Midday 9:01 a.m. —3:00 p.m. 30
PM Peak 3:01 p.m. —6:29 p.m.. 30
Evening 6:30 p.m.—8:30 p.m, No Service
Weekend 8:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m. 60
Not confirmed. Represents desired headways.
Vehicle Requirements. Two vehicles will be assigned to the Route 4 on weekdays and one
vehicle on weekends.
Route 5-Cal Poly,Foothill Road, and Amtrak
Proposed Change. No changes are proposed to the Route 5. Staff will re-time the route and
strive to reduce the headway from 34/68 minutes to 30/60 minutes.
Proposed Alignment. No change.
Days of Operation. The Route 5 will operate on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and on
weekends from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Route 5 will operate a weekend schedule on the
following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day. This
route will not operate on Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day.
Proposed Final Recommendations 2003 SRTP
June 9, 2003 Page 44
Headways. The Route 5 will operate the following headways:
Headway
Period Hours (mins)
Weekday
AM Peak 6:00 a.m.—9:00 a.m. 30
Midday 9:01 a.m. —3:00 pm. 30
PM Peak 3:01 p.m. —6:29 p.m. 30
Evening 6:30 p.m.—8:30 p.m. No Service
Weekend 8:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m. 60
Not confirmed. Represents desired headways.
Vehicle Requirements. Two vehicles will be assigned to the Route 5 on weekdays and one
vehicle on weekends.
Route 6-Cal Poly Circulators
Proposed Change. The New Route 6 is split pattern route. The Route 6a serves the North
Foothill/Highland Road area providing connecting service to Cal Poly at Mott Gym. The Route
6b serves the Mill Street area providing connecting service to Cal Poly at Mott Gym and
Downtown.
The Route 6 introduces the concept of a peak period and non-peak period service to the City of
San Luis Obispo. Peak period service ranges from October 1 to June 30, and non-peak period
service ranges from July 1,to September 30.
Proposed Alignment. The Route 6a will operate on the following roadways: South Perimeter
Drive Road, North Perimeter Drive, University Drive, Highland Road, Patricia Drive, Tassajara
Road, Ramona Road, Broad Street, Foothill Road, Santa Rosa Road, Murray Street, Casa Street,
Foothill Road, California Boulevard, Campus Way, and South Perimeter Drive.
The Route 6b will operate on the following roadways: South Perimeter Drive, Grand Avenue,
Mill Street, Osos Street, Santa Rosa Street, Mill Street, California Boulevard, Campus Way, and
South Perimeter Drive.
Days of Operation. During the peak periods (school year) and non-peak periods (summer
months), the Route 6 will operate Mondays through Thursdays from 6:00 a.m. to 830 p.m., and
on Fridays and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. . Route 6 will not operate on Sundays.
Sunday service on Routes 4 and 5 can accommodate any service demand in the Foothill Road
and Mill Street corridors. This route will operate on a weekend schedule on the following
holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day. This route will
not operate on Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day.
4 ou
Proposed Final Recommendations 2003 SRTP
June 9, 2003 Page 45
Headways. The Route 6 will operate the following headways during peak period service:
Headway
Period Hours (mins)
Mondays throueh Thursday s
AM Peak 6:00 a.m.—9:00 a.m. 30
Midday 9:01 a.m.—3:00 p.m. 30
PM Peak 3:01 p.m.—6:29 p.m. 30
Evening 6:30 p.m.—8:30 p.m. 60
Fridays and Saturdays
All Day 8:00 a.m._ 6:00 p.m. 60
The Route 6 will operate the following headways during non-peak period service:
Headway
Period Hours. (mins)
.Mondays throueh Thursdays
AM Peak 6:00 a.m. —9:00 am. 60
Midday 9:01 a.m. —3:00 p.m. 60
PM Peak 3:01 pm.—6:29 p.m. 60
Evening 6:30 p.m._8:30 p.m. 60
Fridays and Saturdays
All Day 8:00 a.m._-_6:00 p.m. _ 60
Vehicle Requirements. Two vehicles will be assigned to the Route 6 during peak period service
from Mondays through Thursdays. One vehicle will be assigned to the Route 6 during non-peak
periods and evening hours providing interlining service between Route 6a and Route 6b.
Performance Measures. The evening portion of Routes 6 must maintain a twenty percent
farebox ratio for the operating costs associated to the Route 6 and/or must achieve a minimum of
twelve passengers-per revenue vehicle hour. Failure to achieve one or both of these standards
within six months from implementation, staff will be directed to discontinue in accordance to the
public participation policy in the Short Range Transit Plan. Please refer to Attachment 7.
-1 r�
ATTACHMENT 3
Proposed Final Recommendations 2003 SRTP
June 9, 2003 Page 46
Evening Service-Descanso Extension
Proposed Change. The proposed evening service is a split pattern route providing lifeline
service to the southwest area and the southeast area of the City. The Southwest Route serves the
South Higuera Street, Los Osos Valley Road, and Madonna Road Corridors. The Short Range
Transit Plan initially proposed that the Southwest Route operate on Oceanaire Drive with the
intent to expand the service area of the new route and to provide more direct.service to the
residents in Laguna Lake. It is also important to note that this recommendation proposes bus
service on Oceanaire Drive, where buses do not currently operate. Based on the public
comments received, the proposed final recommendation modifies the recommendation prepared
by the Consultant to extend the route to Descanso Road to provide maximum service coverage to
the Laguna Lake and Irish Hills areas, as well as, the Promenade on Madonna Road. The net
result is that this will generate a maximum of three trips.
The Southeast Route serves the Broad Street, Johnson Street, and Orcutt Road areas providing
connecting to downtown.
Proposed Alignment. The Southwest Route will operate on the following roadways: Osos
Street, Palm Street, Nipomo Street, Pismo Street, South Higuera Street, Los Osos Valley
Road, Perfumo Canyon Road, Del Rio, Descanso Road, Los Osos Valley Road, Madonna Road,
South Higuera.Street, Marsh Street, Santa Rosa Street, Mill Street, and Osos Street.
The Southeast Route will operate on the following roadways: Osos Street, Palm Street,Nipomo
Street, Marsh Street, Broad Street, Orcutt Road, Johnson Street, Southwood Road, Laurel Lane,
Augusta Street, Bishop Street, Johnson Street, Monterey Street, Santa Rosa Street, Mill Street,
and Osos Street.
Days of Operation. During the peak periods, evening service will operate from 6:30 p.m. to
8:30 p.m. During summer months, the evening service will operate from Mondays through
Thursdays 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. providing interlining service. This route will operate on a
weekend schedule on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence
Day and Labor Day. This route will not operate on Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day.
ATTACHMENT 3
Proposed Final Recommendations 2003 SRTP
June 9, 2003 Page 47
Headways. The Evening Service will operate the following headways during peak period
service:
Headway
Period Hours (mins)
Mondays through Thursday s
AM Peak
Midday
PM Peak
Evening 6:30 p.m. 8:30 p.m. 40
The Evening Service will operate the following headways during non-peak period service:
Headway
Period Hours (mins)
Mondays through Thursdays
AM Peak
Midday
PM Peak
Evening 6:30 p.m. — 8:30 p.m. 80
Vehicle Requirements. Two vehicles will be assigned to the Evening Service during peak
period service from Mondays through Thursdays. One vehicle will be assigned to the Evening
Service during non-peak periods.
Performance Measures. Evening service must maintain a twenty percent farebox ratio for the
operating costs associated to evening service and/or must achieve a minimum of twelve
passengers per revenue vehicle hour. Failure to achieve one or both of these standards within six
months from implementation, staff will be directed to discontinue in accordance to the public
participation policy in the Short Range Transit Plan. Please refer to Attachment 7.
Trolley
Proposed Change. The proposed change to the trolley service into provide a direct link
between Upper Monterey Street and the downtown. This proposed change will give the trolley
service a transportation purpose by targeting tourists staying the hotels on Monterey Street .
desiring to visit the downtown area.
Proposed Alignment. The proposed trolley service will operate on the following roadways:
Monterey Street, Chorro Street, Higuera Street, Nipomo Street, Marsh Street, Osos Street, and
Monterey Street.
ATTACHMENT 3
Proposed Final Recommendations 2003 SRTP
June 9, 2003 Page 48
Days of Operation. The trolley will operate from Thursdays to Sundays. On Thursdays, the
trolley will operate from 3:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. On Fridays and Saturdays, the trolley will
operate from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. On Sundays, the trolley will operate from 10:00 a.m. to
3:30 p.m. The trolley will not operate on Christmas Day and Thanksgiving Day.
Headways. The trolley will operate on approximately 15 minute headways:
Vehicle Requirements. Two vehicles will be assigned to the Route 5 on weekdays and one
vehicle on weekends.
Performance Measures. The trolley service must maintain or exceed minimum of twenty
percent farebox ratio for the operating costs associated to the trolley service and/or must achieve
a minimum or exceed twenty four passengers per revenue vehicle hours. Failure to achieve one
or both of these standards within twelve months from implementation, staff will be directed to
review the service and implement necessary modifications in accordance to the public
participation policy in the Short Range Transit Plan. Please refer to Attachment 5.
ATTACHMENT 3
Proposed Final Recommendations 2003 SRTP
June 9, 2003 Page 49
FINANCIAL
Annual RVM 425,553 424,077 424,610 409;589 467,355
Operating Cost 2,303,058 2,299,587 2,300,841 2,265,507 2,260,261
Capital Cost 111,667 11.1,667 111,667 87,000 87,000
Difference 187,251 192,693 190,728 287,789 296,013
1 • I , i It I 1 IM,
Regular Cash $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
Sr/Dis Cash $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50
Evenina $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 na $0.50
�
of I 1 i I s
Meets Farebox? No No No No No
Year Meets Farebox NA 2006 2006 2005 2005
First Year of Deficit? 2006 2006 2006 NA NA
Deficit Recover NA NA NA NA NA
PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND POLICY
Local Fixed Route 24.3 20% 12 months Review& Modify
Route
Trolley Route 24.3 20% 12 months Review& Modify
Evening Service Route 12.0 20% 6 months Eliminate
Blank
ATTACHMENT.
WE IN WIN Ed
e o o _ - • .
Item: B-1
TO: Mass Transportation Committee
FROM: Austin O'Dell, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: Final Recommendation for the Short Range Transit Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Incorporate Option E, with the recommended fare increases, into the Short Range Transit
Plan
2. That the Mass Transportation Committee recommend to the City Council adoption of the
Short Range Transit Plan.
3. That the Mass Transportation Committee adopt performance standards for evening
service and the trolley service and that a twelve month review be conducted by staff to
identify deficiencies and strengths of the system and to make recommendation for service
changes, increases or discontinuation.
BACKGROUND
The.City Council approved the solicitation for the preparation of the Short Range Transit Plan at
their November 6, 2001 meeting. Staff received three proposals and selected Urbitran Incorporated
as the most responsive proposer. Urbitran was charged with reviewing the financial and operating
health of San Luis Obispo; conducting an on-board origin/destination study,preparing a master bus
stop plan, and developing service modification recommendations. Urbitran has developed short-
term changes (1-2 years),mid-term changes (2-3 years),and long-term changes(4-5 years). For the
purposes of this report, the discussion will focus on the short-term changes. Mid and long-term
recommendations will remain as detailed in the SRTP draft dated April 2003.
Process
Participation from the Mass Transportation Committee. The Mass Transportation
Committee assigned members to the Short Range Transit Plan Ad hoc Committee to review and
provide input in the development of the working papers from the Consultant. This was an
important function of the Mass Transportation Committee to insure their concerns were being
addressed.
Ama amgT 4
Working Papers from the Consultant. The Consultant prepared two working papers for the
Short Range Transit Plan Ad Hoc Committee to review. The first working paper discussed the
existing conditions of San Luis Obispo Transit and detailed the findings from the on-board
origin/destination survey. The second working paper presented the Consultant's initial
recommendations for service modifications to the Short Range Transit Ad Hoc Committee to
review. After receiving comments from the Ad Hoc Committee, the Consultant prepared a Draft
for the public to provide comments. The full Mass Transportation Committee reviewed this
Draft at its March 26, 2003 meeting.
Public Input Meetings. The Consultant prepared the Draft Short Range Transit Plan that was
available for the public to review and to make comments. The public comment period was from
April 15, 2003 through May 19, 2001 Copies of the plan were available at: City Hall, Public
Works Administration, City/County Library, and the Kennedy Library at Cal Poly.
There were four open house meetings conducted by the City to educate the public and to receive
comments. Two open house meetings were conducted at the San Luis Lounge at Cal Poly on
May 1, 2003. The morning meeting was from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m-, and the afternoon meeting
was from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The remaining meetings were conducted at the Meeting Room
at the City/County Library on May 15, 2003. The day meeting was from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.,
and the evening meeting was from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Over 220 comments were received.
Other Meetings. The Transit Manager also presented the Short Range Transit Plan to the Low
Vision Council, the Chamber of Commerce's Tourism Council, and the Human Relations
Commission.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Short Term Service Recommendations in the Short Range Transit Plan.
The Short Range Transit Plan made six short-term service recommendations.
1. New Route 6 (The Cal Poly Circulator). A New Route 6 has been designed to
circulate to Cal Poly from high student population areas. This route allows for
reducing the need for Routes 2 and 3 from serving the Cal Poly campus and
reallocating these resources elsewhere. Routes now serving Cal Poly would be
Routes 4, 5,-and the Cal Poly Circulator. The New Route 6 will provide two
circular routes with more frequent and efficient service to the campus from the
Foothill Road area and the downtown. This route would operate on Mondays
through Thursdays, 7:30_ a.m. through 8:30 p.m., and on Fridays through
Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The New Route 6 would provide 30-
minute service during the school year, and 60-minute service on weekends and
during summer months.
2. Revised Route Z Route 2 consolidates the-current Routes 2 and 6 into one bi-
directional route serving South Higuera Street. The Consultant proposed
several changes to the New Route 2. These included extending the route to
serve the new development on Los Osos Valley Road, which would provide
GATransportation Committees\MrC Committec Y 2004\MTC Regular Meeting,July 2,2003\MrC July 2,2003,SRTP Final 2
Recommendations (Item B-I)L4.doc
J A. ACH ENT
access to employees in the area and would allow transfers between Routes 4
and 5, and improving the service frequency from 40 minutes to 30 minutes
during peak hour service. The disadvantage of the Consultant's
recommendation would be the requirement to discontinue direct service to the
Prado Day Center. This change would require clients of Prado Day Center to
walk about a quarter mile from South Higuera Street on Prado Road to access
bus stops.
3. Revised Route 1. Route 1 would be modified to get back to hourly scrvice
frequency. To do this, service to Cal Poly on Highland Drive would be
eliminated in lieu of the New Cal Poly Circulator. The New Route 6 would
also provide Service along Highland Drive. The major benefit to this change is
that it improves service frequency from 76 minutes to 60 minutes and gets
back to a memory schedule —a major comment received in the SRTP process.
4, New Evening Service. The Consultant. proposes a lifeline evening service
consisting of three loops. The northern loop would be served by the Cal Poly
Circulator. Two buses would serve the southwest and southeast areas on
Mondays through Thursdays from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. during the school
year.
5. Revised Downtown Trolley. The downtown trolley would provide connecting
service between Upper Monterey Street and the downtown on Thursdays
through Sundays. Currently, there is no fare to ride on the downtown trolley.
The Consultant recommended a $0.25 fare to assist in the recovery ratios. This
service change aims to improve service to hotel and motel guests who desire to
visit the downtown.
6. Revised Route 3. The Consultant proposed to eliminate service to Cal Poly to
improve the overall service frequency and to discontinue service to the airport
until such time as Airport Drive is signalized or alternative access can be
accessed. These modifications would allow the Route to return to a memory
schedule with a 30-minute headway as compared to the existing 76 minutes.
Review of Public Comments
Staff conducted a thorough review of all comments received on the draft SRTP. Based on the
comments received, there were several significant concerns that needed additional
considerations. The first concern was the proposed discontinuation of service to the Prado"Day
Center as a result of re-routing Route 2. The majority of comments received were opposed to
the discontinuation of service to the Prado Day Center. Based on the volume of comments, it is
clear that an alternative must be considered to continue the current service to the Prado Day
Center.
The second concern was using Oceanaire Drive as part of the evening service. While bus service
at one time served Oceanaire, currently there is no bus service along this roadway and the
majority of its residents are opposed to having a bus operating in their neighborhood. Based on
the comments received, an alternative routing can be implemented that addresses residents'
concerns, still allows for evening service efficiency and that does not include use of Oceanaire
Drive.
GATransportation CommittecsWTC Committee\FY 2004\MTC Regular Meeting,July 2,2003\MTC July 2,2003,SRTP Final
Rccommcndations (Item 13-1)v4.doc
AITACMIENT
Finally, many comments received discussed the current lack of evening service, which has been
addressed in the Short Range Transit Plan.
Staff Final Recommendations Options
As a final task in the SRTP process, staff compiled its final recommendations for all short-term
service changes. This process included addressing concerns expressed in the public review
process of the SRTP, taking modified service recommendations (and associated costs) and
comparing them with available funding anticipated to be received for the Transit Fund. The City
of San Luis Obispo traditionally commits all of its annual transit funding to transit service — no
funds go to streets or roads as done in some other agencies. The two main funding sources, State
Transportation Development Act (STA) and Federal Transit Administration dollars have been
fully utilized to come up with final SRTP recommendations. In addition, the City must meet a
20%farebox recovery ratio for all service levels provided on an annual basis or face losing STA
funding.
The City's transit service is an enterprise fund. As such, the transit service is required to fund
itself entirely from grants from local, state, and federal sources, as well as revenues from
passenger fares or subscription service. As a policy, the City's transit service does not receive
dollars from the general fund. The challenge is to determine the best possible service to best
meet the needs of the community within the funding anticipated to be received in future years.
The SRTP's short-term recommendations challenge the City on a fiscal level to provide the level
of transit service proposed in the Short Range Transit Plan. Running parallel with the Short
Range Transit Plan process, the Council has approved a transit budget that includes part-time
help for the Transit Manager to meet community concerns regarding marketing and operations.
This new expense represents approximately $27,500 not foreseen in the Short Range Transit
Plan. In addition, $15,000 has been included in the transit budget to increase marketing of San
Luis Obispo Transit.
Considering the Consultant's short-term recommendations,the public comments,available future
transit funding levels — a balanced budget that meets farebox recovery ratios could not be
achieved. In order to address this, staff evaluated five options to balance the budget. These
options are fully discussed in the White Paper included as Attachment 1.
All of the five options take into account that the bus service to the Prado Day Center would
continue, that there would be no service.on Oceanaire Drive, and that SLO Transit would
establish performance standards for evening service.
In addition, in order to address farebox recovery ratio requirements, all five of the options have
had to assume an increase in the general fare.to $1.00 (seniors/disabled $0.50) when service
changesare implemented. This fare increase is being recommended for two reasons: a) to keep
the transit system solvent in later years of the Short Range Transit Plan, and b) to meet the
farebox recovery requirements. The five options are summarized below:
GATransportation Committccs\MTC Committee�FY 2004\MTC Regular Meeting,July 2,2003\MfC July 2,2003,SRTP Final 4
Recommendations (Item 13-1)v4.doc
I
1. Option A. This option represents the Short Range Transit Plan BASELINE with staff
modifications.
• The revised Route 2 would serve the Prado Day Center via Elks Lane. In
order to complete the loop, the bus would be required to turn around at
Suburban Road, and would not service Los Verdes Parks or Auto Park Way
until such time as an alternate route could be supplied to the Day Center, or
pedestrian improvement take place along Prado Road to Higuera.
• The Evening Service serving the southwest area of the city would return to
downtown via Madonna Road, with no service on Oceanaire Road.
• Route 3 would no longer serve the airport due to lack of ridership.
• A special evening service fare of$0.50 (in addition to the general fare) would
be required for all passengers including Cal Poly student and faculty. Seniors
and persons with disabilities would pay an additional $0.25 to the general fare.
• Spreads capital costs over the life of the plan
2. Option B. The major changes to this option are listed below:
• The revised Route 2—same as Option A.
• The Evening Service serving the southwest area of the city would service
South Higuera Street and turn around at Suburban Road no longer servicing
the Madonna Road area.
• A special evening service fare-same as Option A.
• Route 3—same as Option A.
• Capital costs-same as Option A
3. Option C. The major change to this option is described:
• Same as Option A, except:
The Evening Service serving the southwest area of the city would turn
around at Descanso Road.
4. Option D. The major change is described below:.
• Same as Option A,except:
No evening service, including the New Route 6.
5. Option E. The major change is described below:
• Same as Option C, except:
- New Route 2 would operate on 40 minute headway all day
Of these options, staff is recommending Option E. This option is the best option to implement
at this time because it:
1. accomplishes most of the consultant recommendations in the SRTP thus increasing
ridership, improving bus stops and shelters, and trolley service,
2. addresses most of the public comments received by eliminating the Oceanaire
service route and providing service to the Prado Day Center,
3. provides evening service which was consistently a requested new service.
GATransportation Commlttees\MTC Commltlee\FY 2004\MTC Regular Meeting,July 2,2003\MTC July 2,2003,SRTP Final 5
Recommendations(Item 13-1)v4.doc
�� � �,
_ �` �
r:S ��
I
AI-.iACHMENT
Fare Increase — why now? Fare increases are never welcome. They can be controversial and
sometimes lead to ridership slippage. Thus, recommendations for increased fares should be done
only when increased service levels are being provided or there is sound fiscal analysis for the
need of increased revenue. These two factors play heavily in the recommendation to increase
fares at this time.
Currently, the regular cash fare is $0.75, and the senior/disabled cash fare is $0.35 and, when in
operation, there was no surcharge for evening service. The most recent fare increase was
approved by City Council on November 19, 1996. In 2000 when responding to the increase in
the contracting costs, staff identified the possibility of the need to increase fares in'FY 2003 in
order to achieve the required farebox ratio of 20%. For FY 2001-02 SLO Transit was slightly
below the 20% farebox requirement. The SRTP consultant identified that the general fare
component of the existing system only recovered 7.9% of the necessary farebox recovery ratio.
The service changes recommended in the Short Range Transit Plan (and the five options created
by staff to address public. comments) represent an overall increase in service that reflects the
community goals and needs. However, these come at an increased cost. Those costs, coupled
with the desire to better market the system and the additional staff time required to administer the
transit system mean additional.-resources will be needed to address these needs. Because all these .-.
costs are considering operating costs, their total is also required to meet the 20% farebox
requirement. Existing fares have not met the criteria already and it is not anticipated that the
existing fares will significantly generate revenue to meet this requirement.
As a consequence, the City's eligibility for funding will be compromised. There are only two
ways to address this —reduce service levels (and associated funding) or increase farebox revenue
to match transit funding. Staff believes that the recommended service levels reflect the
community's requests and that implementing these services at this time is appropriate.
Unfortunately that leaves option two —increased fares —as the viable way to address the farebox
recovery ratio issue.
Table 1
Type Current Proposed
Regular Cash $ 0.75 $ 1.00
Senior/Disabled Cash $ 0.35 $0.50
Regular Monthly Pass $24.00 $25.00
Sr/Dis Monthly Pass $ 7.00 $ 7.00
Trolley $0.25
New-Reg Monthly AM/PM Pass -- $30.00
New-Sr/Dis Monthly AM/PM - $15.00
The current and proposed fare schedules are illustrated in Table 1.
A new monthly pass(at slightly higher cost)would be created to allow the public to purchase a
non-evening service pass or opt for a pass that is taken throughout the day.
GATransportation Committees\MTC Commiuee\FY 2004\MTC Regular Meeting,July 2,2003\MTC July 2,2003,SRTP Final `0-
Recommendations (Item B-1)v4.doc
Aa AC111V1E V 1
Table 2—Evening;Service
Type Current Proposed
Cal Poly Studeni/Faculty/Staff $ 0.00 $0.50
General Public NA $ 1.50
As shown in Table 2, it is proposed that evening service will require a.surcharge to all customers.
This means that Cal Poly students, faculty and staff will continue the current "free ride" program
currently in place for daytime rides but for evening service they will be required to pay $0.50 per
ride. The general public will pay$1.00 for daytime rides and $1.50 for evening rides.
All five options as discussed above and detailed in the tables in Attachment 2 of the White Paper
have assumed a general fare increase and a special evening service fare in an attempt to address
this issue. Even with these fare increases, Options A, B, and C do not. satisfy the farebox
requirement and annual funding needs.
With the additional fare increase, Options D and E will maintain a farebox ratio of 20% farebox
and minimize or avoid deficit of spending in future years.
It is important to note for the MTC that revenue assumptions are not always exact and that
anticipated farebox may outperform assumptions made for this analysis. A fare increase could be
delayed at this point in time if we assume a significantly higher increase in general farebox (via
higher ridership) as a result of implementing SUP recommendations. While some farebox
increase has been assumed in the analysis, significant changes should be avoided so as to not
overly predict new/future base level revenues.
Can we wait on the fare increase? Waiting until FY 2006 to implement the fare increase is
possible but most probably will not assure meeting the 20% requirement and, in addition, the
overall transit budget will fall into deficit by FY 2008. Having a deficit in the budget is
significant because it means the transit fund will have less carryover in each year to absorb any
unforeseen costs that may arise or to increase service levels such as increased evening service if
it is successful. For example, the bus fleet must meet the state's emission requirement in FY
2007. Currently, it appears that diesel engine manufacturers do not plan to (or simply cannot)
meet the state's emission require in FY 2007. If the City is required to meet the emission
standard in FY 2007 in some other form, there may be a capital expense, greater than already
anticipated,to meet the standard not shown in this analysis.
While a delay in fare increase is an option, staff is recommending it take place now to coincide
with the significant changes and improvements being recommended by the SRTP. This meets
City and State transit funding requirements and allows the ability to implement service
recommendations for mid and long-term scenarios.
Performance Standards for Evening Service. Performance standards, like a 20% farebox or
30 minute headways are common ways of measuring system performance. Because previous
evening service was discontinued due to poor performance and because reinitiation of evening
service received significant support from the public, staff is proposing a separate performance
standard for evening service. Although the overall system must maintain a 20% farebox ratio,
GATransportation Committees\MTC Committce\FY 2004\MTC Regular Meeting,July 2,2003\MTC July 2,2003;SRTP Final 7
Recommendations (Item B-1)v4.doc
EACHMENT
evening service is not anticipated to be nearly that high. It is important that evening service
implementation not impact other service levels throughout the day because of minimum farebox
recovery requirement. Even with the special evening service fare, farebox recovery ratios for
evening service are anticipated to be small when compared to daytime farebox recovery.
Therefore some measure of effectiveness should be created to effectively monitor evening
service so as to avoid competition for limited transit funding.
Staff is proposing that for evening service the following standard be established:
Evening Service must 1) meet a minimum ten percent farebox recovery ratio and/or
achieve a minimum of twelve passengers per revenue vehicle hour, and 2) maintain a
system-wide farebox ratio of twenty percent at the end of the fiscal year.
Failure to achieve one or both of these standards within twelve months from implementation
would result in the need to discontinue or significantly modify the proposed evening service to
meet policies established in the Short Range Transit Plan.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff has conducted a comprehensive review of the various options for the Mass Transportation
Committee. There are some difficult realities that the service the community desires comes with
a cost. Staff cannot recommend any option that will cause the transit service to operate in deficit
in deficit, as Options A, B, and C will do.
Only Options D or E meet the requirements for City and State programs. Option D improves
weekday service at the expense of providing any evening service. In contrast, Option E is a
compromise of all scenarios by reducing the headways of only one route to provide evening
service. Therefore staff recommends that Option E along with the recommended fare increases
and other portions of the draft SRTP be forwarded on to the City Council for implementation.
The Mass Transportation Committee may either support staff recommendation or develop its
own recommendation. Should the Mass Transportation Committee develop it's own
recommendation, additional fiscal analysis may be necessary and a return to MTC might be
needed. Any recommendation from staff or the MTC will be presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for their consideration.
Attachment(s): I White Paper
x--35
GATransportation Committ=\MTC Committec\FY 20041MTC Regular Meeting,July 2,2003\MTC July 2,2003,SRTP Final 8
Recommendations (Item B-1)v4.doc
i
az-rMWENr.
DRAFT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
July 9,2003
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Deby Anderson called the meeting of the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) to
order at 1:05 p.m. on Wednesday, July 9, 2003 at the City/County Library at 995 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL
Present: ' Deby Anderson(Vice-Chair), Andrew Rubin, Jean Knox, and Jim Weir.
Alternates: Kathryne Howard
Staff: Tim Bochum, Deputy Director
Austin O'Dell, Transit Manager
Absent: Bob Anderson (Chair), and Denise Martinez.
Vacancies: Technical Representative, and Alternate.
Alternate Kathryne Howard served as a voting member on the Committee
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. O'Dell reminded the Committee that there is a Planning Commission Meeting on
Wednesday, June 9, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.Room.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
CONSENT ITEMS
A-1. Approval of the Special Meeting Minutes of June 11,2003
Ms. Knox asked for clarification of item D-3, regarding the improvement of the Prado Bridge.
Mr. Bochum replied that there is no funding at this time for reconstruction, but we do have
funding for improvements to the bridge. He also mentioned the possibility of receiving funding to
create a bike trail between Prado and Los Osos Valley Road, which may include the placement of
a pedestrian and bike bridge on the south side of the Prado Road Bridge. Mr. Bochum concluded
that it is unclear whether the city or county controls the property.
ATTACHMENT
Ms. Knox requested clarification of item D-3, regarding the National Transit Database Sampling;
and if it is possible to tell who is getting on and off at each stop.
Mr. O'Dell replied that there is-mandatory sampling that the city must perform. Sampling
includes individual passenger counts at each bus stop.
The motion made by Jim Weir to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2003 meeting as is,
seconded by Kathryne Howard, carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
B-1. Approval of the Final Recommendations for the Short Range Transit Plan
Mr. Bochum stated that the goal of the presentation was to combine the information from the
Short Range Transit Plan, the Recommendation for Service Changes Document, and the City's
Budget Document in order to see exactly where we stand. He also mentioned that there are two
issues the city must face. The first issue is meeting the 20% fare box recovery ratio, in order to
continue to remain eligible to receive transit funding. The second issue is balancing the budget
every year. Based on analysis, the City can not increase service and meet the 20% farebox
standard while keeping a balanced budget, without increasing the fare.
Mr. O'Dell presented a synopsis of the Short Range Transit Plan and staff recommendations.
Mr. Weir inquired about adding a sales tax to fund the transit department
Mr. O'Dell responded that a self-help tax is often considered in large cities, but it does require a
two-thirds vote to pass a sales tax increase. Mr. O'Dell mentioned that voters need to know
exactly how money is going to be used.
Mr. Bochum also replied that three years ago a survey was conducted to determine if people
would be interested in a self-help initiative for transportation. It was dropped because people
were very interested in road maintenance and transit was very low on the list of priorities. In
regard to the City of San Luis Obispo there will be an initiative proposed within the next twelve
months, in order to fund specific service in the City.
Ms. Knox first suggested trolley riders pay $1.00 instead of$0.25, since they are getting the
same service. Secondly she questioned the staff recommendation of increasing the monthly pass
by $1.00, to only $24, while the am/pm pass is $30.
Mrs. Anderson stated that the costs of part time transit assistant and marketing expenses were not
factored into the budget originally, and that seems to be what is breaking the budget.
Mrs. Anderson is concerned with the City's support for the trolley over the entire transit system.
If the City were to eliminate funding for the trolley through increased fares, then there would be
additional funds to cover the extra expenses and possibly eliminate the proposed $0.50 increase
during evening service hours.
tet"
ATTACHMENT
Mr. Bochum responded to Ms. Knox by stating that at $0.25 the trolley would make it the
highest fairbox recovery in the entire transit system, and we have to examine whether people will
still use it. Currently the Chamber of Commerce and the Hotel owners on Monterey Street are
very interested in keeping it free. The suggestion of the trolley being $1.00 can be included as an
alternative, but it is unlikely this fare will be accepted and it will generate sufficient revenue to
pay for operating expenses.
Council Member Ms. Muholland suggested contacting the hotel owners to find out there level of
interest in supplying a monthly stipend in order to fund the trolley.
Mr. O'Dell also responded that there have been suggestions of advertisements inside the trolley
in order to subsidize it.
Mrs. Anderson added that Cal Poly wants it to be free for the students so they subsidize, she
would like the downtown to realize that if they want it to remain free, and the downtown should
do the same.
Mr. Weir added that he had heard from a motel owner that they feel like they already pay a 10%
bed tax to the city already and they should make it free to us.
Mr. Bochum responded that as a Committee you have the ability to forward your
recommendations on to Council, and we have the responsibility as staff to take a closer look at
your suggestions and determine if they are feasible. As for the monthly pass, the initial dollar
recommendation that Mr. O'Dell came to me with was not to change that at all, that way people
that were basically daytime riders would not pay more for services they weren't utilizing.
Ms. Howard noticed that there was a mistake,the fare for the monthly senior pass should be
$7.50 but it was noted as $7.00. If it goes to $15.00 it is going to be double.
Mr. Bochum continued stating that if you purchased an all day or night pass you would pay just a
little bit more and be able to ride all day or night.
Mr. O'Dell mentioned that the new proposed Route 2 will turn onto Short Street in order to
shave almost a mile off the route.
Council Member Ms. Muholland stated that she has received several complaints about that
comer of Short and Cross, and expressed concern about operating a bus on Short and Cross.
Ms. Knox commented that in general she is in favor of the fare increase but if there are extra
funds she would like them to go toward improved service.
Mr. Weir asked for clarification about the $25.00 pass, if he were to ride the night service what
would the cost be? Mr. Bochum responded that it would be $0.50 with the pass.
Mrs. Anderson stated that the proposed evening service is only adding one hour to our current
time. Cal Poly cannot support a$0.50 increase because we have already compromised service,
4. 3
�� 11
___'ATTACHMENT.,
which is a benefit for the general public. With the level of contribution Cal Poly is not willing to
pay $0.50 for that one extra hour.
Mr. Blakeman commented that all of our routes currently start and end at City Hall. If we were to
configure starting on the outbound in, we could extend evening service an extra half hour to an
hour.
Mr. O'Dell replied that it had been considered in the cost analysis of the Short Range Transit
Plan.
Mrs. Anderson commented that Option E changed the beginning time to 6:00 a.m., which differ
from the first two drafts which said 7:30 a.m. Also the peak time we listed as beginning in
October but she felt it should begin in September when school starts.
Mr. Ruben stated that you would loose the students the first two weeks of classes.
Mrs. Anderson added that the route beginning time should remain at 7:30 a.m., because all
student opinions suggested 7:30 a.m. was early enough to start the route, and it should add to the
revenue hours.
Ms. Knox questioned the fact that there is no service on the circulator route on Sunday.
Mrs. Anderson replied that Routes 4 and 5 still service that area on Sunday.
Ms. Knox would like to see a survey quarterly, in order to see the number of people getting on
and off the bus at specific stops and the difference the changes will make.
Mrs. Anderson mentioned the new on-board survey system which will tally Cal Poly students
getting on and off the bus.
Mr, Bochum added that it may not actually do it.by bus stop location, and the•city is working to
establish this program city wide. He also noted that it takes a while for new service levels to
catch on, and the new proposed assistants for Austin will be able to perform:these tasks and it
will probably be available for the Committee in a six month report around December.
Ms. Knox questioned inquired that bus service being canceled may impact Run-About service.
Mr. Blakeman replied that that is not necessarily true; because it can still service that area but it
will no longer be required by law to do so.
Ms. Howard expressed her concern that fares for seniors are being doubled, and many seniors
can not handle that at all. Ms. Knox suggested restructuring the cost of all passes. Ms. Howard
added that currently many seniors do not even know about the bus pass program.
i
ATTACHMENT.
Ms. Knox reminded the Committee that she felt the tourists using the trolley would not notice
whether the trolley was $0.25 or$1.00. Ms. Knox stated that increasing the monthly pass from
$24.00 to $27.00, and the senior passes from $7.00 to $10.00 would be acceptable if they were
honored during evening service.
Ms. Howard commented that there are many cities that have trolley services for$0.25 and $035
which she was will in and happy to pay, but she feels a dollar is too expensive.
Mrs. Anderson suggested the trolley being $0.50, which Ms. Howard acknowledged as a
possibility.
Mr. Blakeman suggested considering an intermediate fare for adolescents between the ages of
five and seventeen. Mr. Ruben commented that it should be between the senior and regular fare..
Mrs. Anderson suggested $0.75
Mr. O'Dell created a.matrix on the whiteboard and it was filled in by the committee members
with the suggested fares. One of which included a youth fare with a pass fare of$10.00.
Mr. Bochum commented that the suggested rate of$10.00 for the intermediate fare could
financially ruin San Luis Obispo Transit. Mr. O'Dell agreed. Mr. Blakeman acknowledged that
the ridership from the Junior High School is very high which would significantly affect the
Transit Department.
Mrs. Anderson suggested that we go forward with the current fare categories and if we see a
need for an intermediate fare at a lower rate we can implement this at a later date. There should
be some research conducted in order to determine if this is legal and feasible. Mr. Bochum
suggested adding the exploration of the youth pass issue to the committee recommendations.
Ms. Dovey, member of the public, commented that in terms of the youth you might consider a
semester pass which might get you away from the regulations with the senior pass.
While reviewing Option E the issue of Route 2 being on a no-memory schedule was brought up.
Mr. Bochum stated that it was not plausible to squeeze the route into a half-hour and the only
other way to make it a memory schedule would be to extend it to an.hour. Ms. Knox proposed
posting the schedule on Route 2 because it is not on a memory schedule. Mr. Bochum agreed
Mr. Blackman stated that the people from the day center are very bus savvy and they have the
current schedule memorized,they will have no problem with a semi-memory schedule arriving
every forty minutes.
Mr. Blakeman commented that if he were a Cal Poly student he would want his bus to come
straight from City Hall and go directly into campus, possibly flipping the rotation of the
circulator route at noon. Ms. Anderson replied that we can not do that because a lack of bus
shelters and stops in that direction. Mr. O'Dell stated that was the reason the consultant changed
from his original suggestion of the circulator route going in the direction Mr.,Blakeman
suggested.
�� -3.8
ATTACHMENT
Ms. Anderson asked First Transit if there is a need to bring people in from Highland to City Hall,
and Frank responded that there are very few people riding the bus during that time period. Mr.
Bochum questioned whether someone trying to get downtown for an 8:00 a.m.job would be able
to make the connection from Routes 6a to 6b if the bus left at 7:30 a.m. Ms. Anderson brought
up the fact that those areas are also covered by Routes 4 and 5 which still start early in the
morning. Ms. Anderson compromised with a start time of 7:00 a.m.,because she felt that 6:00
a.m. is too early. Mr. Bochum felt that it was not fare to base the start time on the Cal Poly
schedule, because it may cause concern with people who do not understand why they are not
receiving the same early service as the rest of the community.
A motion to approve Staff Recommendation Option E with the following amendments was made
by Jean Knox and seconded by Jim Weir:
a) Fare changes below:
Regular Cash $ 1.00
Senior/ Disabled Cash $ 0.50
Regular Pass $ 27.00
Senior/Disabled Pass $ 10.00
Trolley $ 0.50
*Pass would be honored on evening services
b) Explore the option of switching from outbound to inbound service
c) Changing the Cal Poly Peak Service from Labor Day through June 15'h
d) Route 6 Service starting at 7:30 a.m.
e) A study will be conducted 6 months after implementation
0 Conduct a fairbox study in effort to consider the implementation of a youth fare
g) Passes and transfers accepted on the trolley
The motion was carried unanimously.
Ms. Anderson questioned whether the City Council will see the recommendations of the Mass
Transportation Committee if the City chooses to move forward with Option E as written.
Mr: Bochum responded that the City Council will see the Committee's recommendations, along
with the Planning Commission even though most of the items-will not be under their purview.
Mr. Bochum questioned what areas the Committee would prefer the.staff to modify first in order
to better get to your package as opposed to ours, should the staff need to modify your
recommendations. Mr. Weir suggested protecting the senior and disabled as much as possible.
Mr. Ruben felt that the evening service should be provided at least on a trial basis. Mr. Bochum
suggested bringing Route 3 to sixty minutes rather than thirty. Ms. Knox suggested reconfiguring
Routes 1 and 3 to work better together,because she felt Route 3 should be a thirty minute
headway because it will do a great deal for ridership, at least tried for a six month period.
Ms. Anderson stated that if the Cal Poly Ridership were to increase significantly then she
believes that the next contract between Cal Poly and the City will reflect the improvement in
service.
ATTACHMENT -
INFORMATION ITEM
D-1 Meeting Calendar for Fiscal Year 2003/2004
There was no discussion of this information item.
D-2 Transit Managers Report for May 2003
Mr. O'Dell said he would address any questions or concerns regarding the report. There were no
questions or concerns from the Committee.
MEMBER COMMENTS
There were no comments from members.
ADJOURNMENT
Deby Anderson adjourned the meeting at approximately 3:42 p.m. The next regular meeting is
scheduled for September 10, 2003.
4- 1`
1`
ATTACHMENT,
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
General Plan Policy Conformity Text Reference
The City favors additional on-campus The SRTP conforms to the General Plan General Plan Digest,LU
housing, enhanced transit service, and Element because the short term 1.12.2:Cal Poly,Page LU-
other measures to minimize impacts of recommendations increase the service 18
campus commuting and enrollment. frequency and provide more direct service to
the campus.
Transit service linking development The SRTP conforms to the General Plan General Plan Digest,LU
sites with the citywide bus system Element because transit services are planned 7.7:Transit Service,Page
should be provided concurrent with concurrently with urban development in the LU-81
any additional urban development in Airport area. Based on current ridership data,
the Airport Area. service demand does not warrant transit service
at this time. Transit service will be re-
established when urban development creates
the service demand.
Reduce people's use of their cars by The SRTP conforms to the goal in the General General Plan Digest,
supporting and promoting alternatives Plan because its increase in service frequency Goals,2,Page CI-3
such as walking, riding buses and and routing is to make the city's bus service
bicycles,and using car pools. more attractive to commuters and become
choice riders. That is, citizens choosing to
ride the bus over driving their car for the
transportation needs.
Funding alternative forms of The SRTP conforms to the strategy in the General Plan Digest,
transportation. General Plan because the City will utilize 100% Strategies,
of its state and federal transit funding for the Page CI-4.6
city bus service.
Increase the use of alternative forms of The SRTP conforms to this objective in the General Plan Digest,
transportation and depend less on the General Plan because the service frequency and Circulation Element,
single-occupant use of vehicles. routing improvements will attract new riders to Objectives,
the city's bus service for their transportation Encourage Better
needs. As a result to these improvements, it is Transportation Habits,
reasonable to anticipate some shift from single- CI-4
occupant vehicle to the bus.
The city should improve and expand The SRTP conforms to this policy in the Circulation Element,
city bus service to make the system General Plan because the service frequency and Policies,
more attractive, convenient and routing improvements will attract new riders to Cl 2.2:City Bus Service,
accessible. the city's bus service for their transportation Page CI-10
needs. As a result to these improvements, it is
reasonable to anticipate a shift from single-
occupant vehicle to the bus.
The City should continue to work with The SRTP conforms to this policy in the Circulation Element,
Cal Poly.to maintain and expand the General Plan because the document Policies,
"no fare program" for campus service recommends maintaining the partnership with CI 2.4:No Far Programs,
and Cal Poly should continue to Cal Poly to continue the Cal Poly Subsidy Page CI-10
provide financial support. Program
General Plan Policy Conformity Text Reference
4, 4 `
Ax �ACHMENT (p
The city supports the following service The SRTP conforms to this policy in the Circulation Element,
standards for its transit system and for General Plan because the recommendations Policies,
development that is proximate to the Includes these service standards. CI 2.6: Service Standards,
transit network: Page CI-11
A)Bus fares will be set at levels where
cost is not a constraint for people to
use buses.
B)The frequency of City transit
service will compare favorably
with the convenience of using private
vehicles.
C)Routes,schedules and transfer
procedures of the City and regional
transit systems should be coordinated
to encourage commuter use of buses.
D)In existing developed areas,transit
routes should be located
within 1/4 mile of existing businesses
or dwellings.
E)In City expansion areas,
employment-intensive uses or
medium,medium-high or high density
residential uses should
be located within 1/8 mile of a transit
route.
The City will adopt a short-range The SRTP conforms to this program because Circulation Element,
Transit Plan(5-year timeframe)and a this document is the transit plan that analyzes Programs,
long-range Transit the operating and financial health of the City's Cl 2.8:Transit Plans,Page
Master Plan(20-year time frame). transit system over a ten year planning horizon. CI-11
Ilei.
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER# 101-03
1. Project Title: San Luis Obispo Transit Short Range Transit Plan, 2003
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, 955 Morro Street, San
Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Austin O'Dell, Transit Manager, (805) 781-7121
4. Project Location: City of San Luis Obispo (Citywide)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Austin O'Dell, Public Works Department, 955 Morro
Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: NA
7. Zoning: NA
8. Description of the Project: The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is a planning document that
reviews the financial and operating health of the City's bus service, and proposes service
changes. The SRTP also includes a Service Stop Master Plan, which reviews bus stop locations
and proposes bus stop standards. The SRTP is a document that is incorporated in the Regional
Transportation Plan.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The setting for the SRTP is the city limits for the City of
San Luis Obispo.
10. Project Entitlements Requested: Adoption of the Short Range Transit Plan
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: San Luis Obispo City Council, City of San .
Luis Obispo Mass Transportation Committee, and the City of San Luis Obispo Planning
Commission.
�J�
t. 2ACHMENI'
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the.following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing M
Resources � .
FISH AND GAME FEES
X There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
mai Cmr OF SAN.Luts OBISPo 2 INMAL STUD ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200:
ATTACHMENT � -
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or``potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
July 22 2003
Date
)Zd�xs(J ��/�,Sr�a—J 0� `� �6��� o l For:JohnMandeyiue.
Printed Name �/.�J / Community Development Director
alias CRY OF SAN LUIS 0aispo 3 WmAL STunY ENwRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
LACHMEN r: '1
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and constriction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis," maybe cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis maybe used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
Where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether,such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Crry of SAN Luis Oetspo 4 iNmAL STuDy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200:
4 -
-issues, Discussion and St ^ ing Information Sources Source mitially Potentially Less Than No
3,gnificant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # Mitigation
Incorporated
ATTACHMENT �
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
X
I&221 e. gC1- 06 X
aw
ON
roc cro ace an CT
X
"ffie'iftead
X
Jor i nru kh
advi6iily
.d).*�4Ciei�tda.ni�w-- ourtd,o �s stan
-effect,day e,
Does not apply. This SRTP recommends bus stop signs and bus passenger amenities at new bus stop locations. Because
these features are very small,there will be no substantially adverse impact to the aesthetic surroundings of the new bus stops.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
M&nhland-t,
nique- and�l
MT= Ta]Wani- of; uC X
Statewide Important a Rdffi fon.tlie�ft§,7
0
pt t6ih&Fairnihhid�M f
the?Cahfornia Resources Agency
,existTmgzor=ungiffoz X
Act contraorr-, k.,-. .' —n,
c) `InvoTSe other in
changes_ _
(
nature v
omr.. ii -X)u1d4tWtqn"=* n
0**oZZ—, uiii� .
0
Does not apply because no agriculture resources are associated with this project,
3. AIR QUALM. Would the project:
' violate ilinti4fff Ta�, X
o n
existilig,or.,
�YM
p)--Conm k;01 fle-2&
,plictib X
gftn-W hitaMl. X
ceb t1d
ndJ b X
n
ZsMb�e
The recommendations in the SRTP do not add vehicles to the current bus vehicle fleet nor does it significantly increase
emissions with the expanded use of the existing fleet. Additional, the City is subject to and compliant with the mandates of
the California Air Resources Board Resolution 00-02,as amended.
4. ,BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
1111111iiiQiii Crry OF SM Lues Oampo 5 INmAL STuoy ENVIRONMENTAL Q4EcKusT 2003
Issues, Discussion and ; ting Information Sources Sourc entially Potentially Less Than No
mgnificant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # Mitigation
Incorporated
AIJACk
IL
%T� „pp'ftcies, r ' - ttdi or r lie.'@allfoi Wilig-1,
et
2.
f , n Y� L.1 tad .
s, c e& rdntances 4 eCtln X
0 naenrece' rj.�pgy,.rSag.O
.7Ui Aa'r..istja:g..fe+f��+Yr eee•s�.?.efs- � - ao
onynaitve-Q,r;Leis't�d�Fen,;,t.��,:•..
Xbsbf
~e ~
"i.`s.� s r 'i�xssg= `��.�' 'f #.'_ t'x J d s 1 A.
s, -,.-48tdeti or ntgratoy vvt7dltfes�cot�x dots,�or unpede flee use o£,,t p,
e) Csonfirct with the provts>ons of ansa opted habttat;Conservattoni` X
.`"iz, Y e x ') -
Plan;Natural Communtty Cons ttonlan;or other approvedsr
l� F r'�
ocal,regtoiial,or state habitat;conse adomp1an7:
f) ;have a sitbstariUal,2 verse¢ffect+on Federally prgtected ; . r;, X
Wetlanos as defined in Section404 oEt3ie Cleaa Water Aet,
~ 'I(mcttidmgZ,butnot liintted to,marshes;�einal`pools,etc)` Y'.
Sthrough dtrect removal,fillmg;,bydrq"logical mtemtptton;cjr
�othermeansv._,_.c '-�• .`' 3 .��M=;::,_ ✓:3t.6a_:s,.,.._:�-_
Does not awly because no biological resources are associated with this project.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
Cause a bstantial adve se:cl angd m ttie;stgwficance of a,
X
i
.suv i..
lustonc lesgurce7f(S6e QEQ?L,dWde pO 150,645) w ,
b) Cause arsabstahtial:ad�erse c%mMe. the stgtufitance oftan r X
�arclia logica7rrestiti cep(See CEQA
in elmes,15064 5)
c) birecfly or:indirectlyL,- r�.a_tmt�uel aleontological resource x
�o��site;.ornrntquegedlogtcfeature?' , � . ; ; ,y ,�
d� =p'istu>b,auyhttmanrematmsa?ncludutg,thosemteredoutsicleyof X
<;-'focrmal;cemetemes?.'_ ...�.�.�::�<r ., . �'
No above ground cultural resources are associated with this project. The SRTP does not propose any construction grading
that may cause substantial adverse impacts to cultural resources. This SRTP proposes the installation of small bus stop signs
on a free standing post. The cultural resource impact associated to the installation of bus pull outs will be assessed as part of
individual projects from developers.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
x.�- — -. .�„-., 71-71-1-W,
nfltc iv ado tedtenergycconse}�/phcup lans?
rz f„1 r-'�`+i2 y ws J I #snr
�. sentmy1eaewabesesonrces � vaefttlt2nd�riafficnf "n~� X
-c�,-� uttigtheloss�favat�a'btirtf°a*lm6rvn�nmeSal,�esonrce,, ��.
�'� oul�d�be=o�va'tae to�teiegton�aa`�d`I{Eie�aesidenfs of e`��„�^
�.!n ,z M��'a�+. '�1.� �N- ,•r,. .�-r.M,R�'S'.'.. ww��yr�,��,
This project complies with the local and federal energy conservation plarIs.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.—Would the ro'ect:
ose ,p baotcu enftsi tta X
t� 0 "
e 7 uUtIVAIRg rr�sic«o loss n ur3 pn' vm '' r
Y � kno e y
X
X
X
Crry of SAtt Luis OntsPo 6 INITIAL STUDY F_NwRommENTAL CNEc KLisT 2001
Issues, Discussion and S, ..ng Information Sources Source ntially Potentially Las Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # Mitigation
Incorporated
. AlA ENT
nee, .
e e' 8- ' we ¢ X
o nildtag=r :9 its to life `
The implementation of the SRTP has no impact on geology or soils. w
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro•ect:
a�� "�aestgmfi a tltazard'to"�h; ub"lt 7 e,en ntnent wi t' X
w )-rrec"i' -4.q '.`_.=• - ,5,}Y'.',,g1r �e.`.i.ta� 'v
n tluouh therouhnevsa, rtr �of hazardous c
�jr ":3. "e""et .+r.T r� nf rp$�• -^' IRS,
?'b) _te m ficantahaz zdyto: a pubLc orthe envuonnte"ant: X
�% �rlk..d'*" -:RNf!' -nrz sKi Y
? through nably,.foreseeabidayins tand;accident.."n pons n�,
F"'tj` u +r S .a. .� a(s.:t a it'"itn v.ay
u; o g the releaseof does aterialsanto�the y
y45� `ter�sy x' 4Gb�e'T•'w o�a^
i.. ntneQt�+.Y -''L ^.s+� i
~ sioMne�sA= nli Sia e"aad .u+^Vd
f� azaari
r`
X
x " e f naautin'g"orAp
azusrmabsol �sz bse o;, �
w 'st .Bwer) bt w'• _.s.q ia' rrJ..a ,.i -
Exp�sesp7e ortstruchtr,�'T tog>ustan�urrh °us< X
'��?emt��sws.Yi1oLnlIsorr hazardouus or acudoups'mate+nals; ;
snbstancesi waste? ;
ea exwht chi' clfi _ ton a,l ofi dour X
a eri 'istteskpursuant Go. emme ,C e!Secaongr�
res- r'.'$.: 't+2.'.iSr''^by iri'tia`.'V3✓" S.x...s.. S
asta.resnl' 8;w8yaywy�v�}e tgmficantjbazard;t4o `.
3C.�C^. ^ +" .l4reX Ja{ �+V5` a 4�`S Rl'A4'i"+taK WT`Y u^
e, ,ssJ1w1CA CSP, nMronment�. ' k
.1'- x•ry--a•z. }..:1r T•* {.•. %• wy'+ ms's" 4L+.�-,� t5'„, X
owcatedm�an anda efpl o thin
o f;of>a�pu'bhc',ai id kwon""1dae-,pro�ectlresnlf5n a�safety {
zqj
d},forthe,, ple,residmgrar�,o ��g��a"�the�
` A O Reil�Atanon`o
byQL envy responss em encyievacu'aronA
r E,e.ort fi o rlo fury', � X
Does not apply because no hazards or hazardous material are associated with this project.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALrrY. Would theproject:
o _X
X
a
o d
e ci13 nm �
s o
e X
MOB CITY OF SAN Luis OtusPo 7 INITIAL STUDY E moNLmwAL CNEacusT 2003
.
—1 �^ 1
Issues, Discussion and ting Information Sources Soup tentially Potentially Less Than No
.>ignificant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # Mitigation
Incorporated
X
A ITAC NT 1
Q
e: X
�-
$jj�) fin
��> ryyy, X
0ffifi lift
e eI31 00 $»Td` 0 a t l O IIt$1r3nC
t y�`�.Otfl�er�,�1100d�a72rd�elIIlCaUOII`II18�1�'� i"` "`*�� ..�.<"'.R``•�.
gig) Place within a 00-year flood�arar<1 ar'ea:structuies whtch X
}y "taOLL1�rIIj) e Or{ xeaC110�VS"'�+�~'
>h)
s 1�.Wi'Ile project tntiroduce,typicalsto�im`�waterpollutants mto ;� ,; X
'ground`or•'surface waters ,j= , ,° %. t• a_ �,
;Will ilte pco�ect alter ground water orsurface,water qualrt3
r; T a y ,
tem dissolved o eti,LLor turbi ; y :~ a'
The implementation of the SRTP has no impact on hydrology or water quality.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) ;Gonflicf with-appe'lk0le lamd use plant'=_;ohcy, or,regulation of X
anency';�nth�urisdict>on over thero�ectkadopteti'for
puropngotdgmgan envQonmenesof atal thhe'-
e$ect?< w
t-
b� "Physically dHvvlde an ift-bluhedscommum�y? Y .' X
1-qs
�Confltcr4c ith aapphcable'liabllat coriservatton,p7an or natural; X
t, ++ -^J'!a'" s b"..`,. a- _♦'1 u y ~'�+w# � +.' ^'"5N er'' E" ".
wu. lAlnm consbivatlon
The SRT? is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The SRTP will implement policies of the Land Use
Element by enhancing transit service that will encourage bus use between the city limits and the Cal Poly campus. As a
result,the SRTP will reduce the impacts campus commuting.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or ge eiatzon of 'b e- noise 3{
i F
r
�� rlevels,asaefined'byifhe San o Genera-
'Ob' Plan Ndise
z�'''1r�emett�or general�notse le�eTs,,m excess o��andar"ds� �s ��:
"-R ab Mid m-the�6isiE
M�._m,,:»r'.iu4
g r 1su�bstaztt►a' 1'QeM- °rary,`pen°d c'°r e�`3""na t ncreas nt X
�� otse_)eve"1sm�teect�vcwtty ove eyelsiostln
'� �o`E�et,,sons a'tir�getalion cess�tve xuni3�bo"rne. w, X
�^ . '• owor.groundbo�n 4ts�7�,evels �� a �`
lex
vac e6Taubic
t•
The proposed service change complies with the City's applicable ordinances. Also,there are no changes in the bus type that
could change noise levels.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the ro'ect:
X
0
The SRTP does not induce population growth or displace existing housing.
CRY OF SAN Luis OBtspo 8 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT200.1
4- U
Issues, Discussion and ; ing Information Sources Sourc :ntially Potentially (essThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
L
Unless Impact
ER # Mitigation
Incorporated
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
X
X
h,., ,• s 4t � � r.r,zr : 6' J.'� .�.c�ir � �,S:x� .e: &1•.
C�w�"R03dSattiietTaD_S_POr12t11'y 6L a?' ' rF".= 7• X
Other vblic.facilities7 r .'f: '` <:. �'_y r X
The implementation of the SRTP will improve public transportation in the City as recommended by the General Plan.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
Y'i�'� Y :f
Iriciease the:use of ezlstigg neighborhood or regional parks X
btt►errecreauonalficilitk ucTi1116sulistanbal:phystcal1� ;
wdeteno'ra4toiio�the factlttyould occur`orbe acceletated2. '
b� ;Includes onaMacilrhesroffe�u .theconstruconor t°; X
s`' enstoii oecregtio_na11 li'hies wh5btmltght liav att averse'
�,.,�+•a! h ical'effectbnthe?ezi`v"iiomnent?L� "' i a+ 'L. ��•
The SRTP does not have a negative impact on the City's existing or proposed recreational facilities and may in fact improve
the access to recreational facilities.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
Y� _•w x-r..ct-e•.>?.•+.tet .r':- o- `Y --a��� m- •��^ause-anrrmtxease`yin'sZiaffic.�w"]uc'h�s''su`�stanhali _relaUon,Yo the" X
r ystu traffic116adland'caj�a ofthhstreetsysfem`?
1�• ie-,StI }:•`TFx .Y - s.-r^„c,z, Y.cn sc wy. i S•> ''* M
'* MZTX herandiviSually'onoumulah�el}�YalevelA service„ X
4„3�Stan--dard eshib)llshed,b`y th'e'co-intyxo4g_&U,management
r end/dordesrgnatedroadsand7ug$ways7, Y
Subs"fanhiy�tncrease haTards due to designSnlfeatur�es{E g tsharp. X
ti curves F-danggmus'MterseceOn
uses(e g
04,ip
ices anaLequae emergencaccess7` X
e)` z X
esuitan`�naegnate�a " aertbnsrteoflsrte3
nfhcX
r i•�2k'` t S_ .'.-.- t�r 'Cr• u t•f +b� �'+ `��"1
a �'tT'a_nS�I�_ On,{e1gi�ILS '`�1 lC`IaCkS `�
' �15anj Lo` a ter':" xd
ry y �� ua+'.•.�.I•>ti: y." ' c
'� �m � :`.
ban_.�mtam'tiafSG
Consistent with the City's Circulation Element, the goal of the proposed service changes in the SRTP is to decrease vehicle
traffic on City streets by encouraging the citizenry to use the local bus service.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
.. r•- h'�fi - X
X
ty X
X
Crry of SAH I =OBtsao 9 IHITtAL STUDY EmmoNMEwAL CHEcKLw 2003
4 ' f I
Issues, Discussion and. .Ming Information Sources sour tertially Potentially Less Than No
aIgnificant Significant Significant Impact
Issues - Unless Impact
ER # Mitigation
as
Incorporated _
-1 ACHME-NI
t �QV.t�e ���� r��. 7•` k - - :11.7 a` �,. �_�
ala X
implementation of the SRTP will have no impact on the City's Utilities or services stems.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
- .,3�s 'Wi�"u-•ro.... x:mtp.....�w-. va' •ve+.:eT
KEX, ua - X
svvun nensubsfauttallysreduthe habitat afa�fish�orwiilife
"� .'."°,"°j.''*y-{=.F.L+1",S ^wS•awrrxa-w'S.i' S'dacir�'a« .' ,:thy q' rt.
c :� ies,cause a'fish.orwddhfe populairon So,dro below5sehf <�
tistamt>tig levelss-pu m'tok lant+or alb
�,, mmunrt"y;reduce the�ntun .,,r��ct�the;rsnge�of�arareor„
�
ee�gered�plant�or;�ant or,�er1> "mm`,,rp°rtanf examp�lf��z
we.ma ori enols of:CallforniaJusto cor rent
No. Implementation of the SRTP will have no impact on fish or wild life.
theproJree�t=havetmfpa ilt1> , ��d limited ut X
cu lwat r-.'I Aconsidera111e3 ("Cumulatively considerable
=i gr _y- y „off
K`rneans that•the incremental?effec oY f a pzoJec vgw,considerablek,
•..,._.zr: .�.+,.t�c., « J*'�'iar..T°v.'7"✓.4'Tvt s
,r �when mewed m connection vv�th the effects ofie ast ro ects yx
,�,er..,.�«�a`s•��` �a"�r.,�y.lac•�'a✓�+;`
s effects�ofcothercyurrentT'ro_Jects' theteffects�r rotiabl�ee
l�'/Y`�..i�woyY1.Vr, Y^Sgl.dp�� .+aA v� • TY%� MI}p.� }�•'X..:L`!
}3'4} tir�,1�V WL.l Fi.YY.is'_ t A't. �A ±.�•'f..3 �la.y t:]nlU No. Implementation of the SRTP has no environmental impacts.
oes the' c have nv'uon ental effec' li>x�chhd cause' X
��iibstantialtadveise effects on�htunan bi; ,ettber�diredlyor�`��
u}�ty�. �"x`..'�i� a'G ..5.�,R«s{>;r aa. �„1Fjy',-• a+'r*�•;a�`E�,�`�"+
'� _,.�((�IreCd'.7io.��SF.w�::�..'�`�b"�,�r�M.,b�,:ik.. � .•`,,-' .... , .,�
No. Im lementation of the SRTP will provide users with additional trans ortation o tions which is a positive effect.
a Crnr of SAN Luis Oempo 10 INmru.STUDY F_NVIRONME AL CNECKUST 200
-17ACHMENT.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES.
fiar�i�r anal `na4 �e mere;, ,fflaflf Ware is
d. d an anseaFli 0
V 70;
i Mrffilm�
LAI M 7-M
lablefid-
None.
"ir"pffied`riitA'-��'Ygjfi�
1b�°°im"pacts quate�} addressed Hent which erects 7
pe of ani ad atel
None.
iih:M'.Mitigation tion:lnc4o4tW.d"'ih6'tfie;......
a6 Significant w ion
measures which*6re inpc#ofiW' of refined frorn'the earlier d6cuinent and theextent to which"the'y'iddress sit&,S, --- -fi
pecl q
aur onsof-the:
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City f San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, 1994
2. San Luis Obispo Transit Short Range Transit Plan,Draft,April 2003
3. City f San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan, 1997
4. FTA Section 5307 Grant,CA-90-X 149-00,Finding No. 1: Class III
5. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996
Gl tJ Of SM WIS OBISP Department of Comm, Development
Planning Division
August 14, 2003
TO: File ER 101-03: Citywide
Austin O'Dell, Transit Manager
FROM: Mike Draze, Deputy Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review of the final recommendations for SLO Transit's Short Range
Transit Plan
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 13,. 2003, recommended the
Council approve the Negative Declaration and Short Range Transit Plan. Additionally,
the Planning Commission recommended that a pedestrian connection between the
Prado Day Center and South Higuera Street be constructed before elimination of the
bus stop at the Prado Day Center.
The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation. to the City Council and,
therefore, is not final. This matter has been scheduled for special public hearing before
the City Council on August 28, 2003.
If there any questions, please contact Public Works at 781-7121.
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
NN AAO A�
N m N W W0 00 00
OI m10 W NN W AOQ C
p
O N N W A m m 0 0 C C L
N m m A m C A O wool N N N Q O N n ¢� E m
1�MMo. OM 0100 11p�W OOD NNMOIhOb ;e E
1 ~ M Q n A b 000 A W N O O I D Om m b 10'1, N n m d 1
VI c r H n C T
v Z M = N
W w w w w w a w a w w w w g w w w w w N
f x
nA m n A 0 0 n m N O1 N N N m O N
pQ n W Q O R O O N pp N O Q W m O A C C 9
O N N A%V A Q OMMW O A O N N W b m m B O O N d m
WN P N(7 m b 0 O W m n a b'O b 0 0 oe ffiy �y m
n n W '`'W
v a w
d d d
N N
a
{NpO N w N N N N w N H g N N N N N N
F �OnOI^•J "WEE
nOO m O N n N N Q N m W NNNN1 P Q O F OAO OQ C C
N Q Q t• O N A E E
3 n Q mof AWW o vio o h 10 bm. v;e pJ p
Ow o N b�i m,m W b n m ,
Z n n m �? m`n Q 10 n n b m n m m
Ow
U N 10Om mNnO tNO N Omi�mmso
mr,lNl W W OA m m 6
Z of ciN v WWW nop,r;vi aoAW E E
Q d4i Q n W y O
Ow O1 N W b N m n m n e U
Z N r N W b OD`Q n N n Q CO N and E d N
C
d w d
K c
NpWN�NppN wwww wwwwgwwwwww LL
W m N 0 W A 0 0 Z-.83;-Wo; 1'1 T rw 11 0 10 ~
N O W Q W m A 0 W n W,m n m O b O n
N N
O
m O
moon W N o 1�W moms W IC eeX q! q yJ E
a
d d d
w N w N N N N p N w w w y N N g N N y N N M SS
A pm�pp om0 Nb00 pp O�^p tm N�b+1ro000m Z
N I OW n m m Q W G l7 N f d N W A 1 N 1 w O m Cc C
A On l�O 100 NO 01'f 0A�mA
Ao 014i N, o b�WmW.-obm :e,e $ E p4E U
N W W 1n Anena��n N� c c O
� � a
§N@8
Npwf pw �NJwww NNNNgNNMwNM
OQ MOO tm 1000 N�N'MWl ql'f N00� d
t D 1"1 m W Q O A
mm N OC nN OOQOI ISA .e
Wm mO `v�o", n�wl� mwomwla , a plE
N Q m a AZnQ��QQ ? wE dE
I.
.- vi ti n di w
v o•
C C
o
N N w p N N N N N N N w N N N N N M M N
N Q O�O n n n 0 0 N VOC m1-�n ml
N;A m C C
N A n A N N N 1 d 0 O N O
OGtMm "Wma MOW NNMM 10'.--:O d w
G n m N N A N O MW m n A a O n W 2eIS E II E
N Q W Q .-b`NN W OnQ A1+1 d E d E
r N N N OV 2 Q Q
0: C
w w w O w w w g N w �vwpp N N N N N N N g N N
O �o N 001 O O O N O N n n wM WS W O N C C
N
�oW N omlo oaoo�i eoriea wiri m d
�W N NIt W m W mm W omppN�A .e,e qj E js E
,-WN
Q W n `' b O n N 0-
N N S N 8 N N N N oe N wa N1 w N w N g N N N N N N
8 n ' O fO m ' N N N N tmd 0 1.f N V N O O N
W oON 0m t c4ON pW NW tiW V,p 1'i
N W N 1'f N W m Q`C m 111 I N m A N O w
� N N '
O
O N N N N w w w N N g w w M q w w M w w w
O
W N g K o
m
pco *6F c
CL C m c W ON W+_, d�m
O O d— y C W Q 3 Vl w
0 O
W LL.o? c O O pC `my GC ys
C7 6dp d d 8� d E O
Z Z Z c A d v 53m 0 m �L c da c o0'�FL
Q � > $. m E wU g.m0 00 o'oa
xa o a ; � $ p " m o u0 Wma > e� � p
W Q 4. C 1i o $1n w N lm o c c O. Ly
B� a I ix �a W C 0 �q o
U_ V .4 q�f dd m-M<4`.O� c y�u mdm2 mO rri
� Z dN wratL mG � Omd� se >.jyiu > do �� �C UOci
m a 6y of w m a y�0 n LL Q a°Q y Q o C O U� m�X d E 14 g
WZ fA yj06d �'cSm `da cFF• wOm 4 E' mo� 'x cd'z C
cn lL < : cNi ,�UwrimOMW6 ��N L)t- mwcnc mW N
a Orin tiger Uu.5C) E>. 9 3
ATTACHMENT J O
FISCAL IMPACT.TABLES
Table 1: Transit Fund Budget
Year Year Year Year Year
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 .
Item Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Total Revenues $ 2,478,000 $ 2,566,900 $ 3,518,200 .$ 4,169,900 $2,834,900
Expenditures
Total Operating Program - $ - . 2,238,100 $ 2,315,800 $ 2,385,300 $ 2,456,900 $2,530,600
Total Expenditures $ 2,411,000 $ 3,478,100 $ 3,416,600 $ 3,944,200 $2,580,600
_. Working Ca ital,,End of Year $ 533,600 $ 380,300 $ 278,700 $ (53,00011 $ 201,300
Table 2: 22Maring the O rat}n Program
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Item Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Transit Fund Budget $ _ 2,478,000 $ - 2,566,900 $ 3,518,200 $ 4,169,900 $2,834,900
Financial Plan $ 2,054,519 $ 2,006,714 $ 2,199,640 $ 2,369,604 $2,441,66T
Table 3: Com " 'n the Workin 1 Capital,End'of Year-
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
2003-04 . 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Item Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Transit Fund Budget $ 533,600 $ 380,300 $ 278,700 $ 53,000 $ 201,300
Financial Plan $ 244,823 $ 410,685 $ 344,809 $ 248,029 $ 182,199
Table 4: Transit Fundin Sources- _
Item Amount Percent
Transportation Development Act $ 1,490,399 53% -
Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 $ 890;765 31%
Other(e.g. fares, Cal Poly) $ 454,434 16%
otal $ 2,835,598 1 100%
1:\-Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review
(Bochum)\Transit CAR-SRTP Adoption ATTACHMENTS.DOC 4, Q Q
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO._(2003 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 2002
WHEREAS,the.City of San Luis Obispo, California operates San Luis Obispo
Transit, apublic transit-service; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments requires transit
operators to prepare a Short Range Transit Plan every five years to be included in the
regional transportation plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducteda public.hearing.on.August
13' 2003 and recommended approval of the Short Range Transit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 28, 2003
and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning .
Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and.recommendation of staff-and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Short.Range Transit Plan
is consistent with the policies of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, theCity Council has.considered the draft Negative Declaration.of
the environmental impact as prepared.by staff and-reviewed by the Planning
Commission;
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has developed a Short Range Transit
Plan to review it public transit service, and to make recommendation for service
improvements; and
I:\—Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review
(Bochum)\Transit CAR-SRTP Adoption ATTACHMENTS.DOC
WHEREAS, the Mass Transportation Committee has reviewed the Short
Range Transit Plan and concurs with the recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Short Range
Transit Plan.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that.the Council of-the City of San
Luis Obispo, who operates SLO Transit:
Section 1. Adopts the Short Range Transit Plan Adopt the Short Range Transit Plan
dated April 2003 as recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee with
modifications in Exhibit A
Section 2. Approve the fare policy.as recommended-by the Mass Transportation
Committee with modifications in Exhibit B.
Section 3. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of
the project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council
hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
Upon motion of ; seconded by , and
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
L\ Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review
(Bochum)\Transit CAR-SRTP Adoption ATTACHMENTS.DOC ''`
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2003.
Mayor Dave Romero
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
[:\_Council Agenda Reports�003 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review
(Bochum)\Transit CAR-SRTP Adoption ATTACHMENTS.DOC (�
council memoRanbum
Ci of San Luis Obispo
DATE: August 26, 2003 RECEIVED
TO: Mayor and Members of the it"Ovy Council A1.1U 6 20
SLO CITY CLERK
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO
FROM: Lee Price, City Clem.
SUBJECT: 8/28/03 Special Meeting Agenda Item#4 re: Short Range Transit Plan
Due to the quick tum-around time, the Minutes of the August 13th Planning Commission are not yet in
available in final form. To assist the Council, a copy of the attached Action Update for the Planning
Commission is being provided for reference.
RED FILE
M ING AGENDA COUNCIL Z---CDD DIR
DA ITEM # CAO 2 FIN DIR
gACAO J'FIRE CHIEF
91ATTORNEY ,IYPW DIR
ZCLERK/ORIG !ePOLCE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS E'REC DIR
fd ;yUTIL DIR
I� R DIP
Council Memorandum Template
V l
Meeting Update
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
August 13, 2003 Wednesday 5:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners, Carlyn Christianson, Jim Aiken, Alice Loh, Allan
Cooper, Michael Boswell, Vice-Chair James Caruso, and Chairperson
Orval Osborne.
All of the Commissioners were present.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
The order of the agenda was not modified. The Commission took a brief dinner break
between Items 2& 3.
MINUTES: Minutes of May 14, and June 11, 2003. Amend or approve.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Citywide. ER 101-03: Review of the final recommendations for SLO Transit's
Short Range Transit Plan; City of SLO Public Works Department, applicant. (Austin
O'Dell)
After receiving remarks from the Mass Transportation Committee Chair and a
presentation the City's consultant, the Planning Commission discussed the impact of
the Revised Route 2 no longer serving Las Verdes Park on Los Osos Valley Road.
Based on current survey, staff reported that there was only one passenger using the
bus stop and that Las Verdes Park residents could use the bus stop on South Higuera
at Suburban Road The Planning Commission also discussed their concern about the
transition from day to evening service, and extending the evening service to 10:30 p.m.
Staff reported that a thorough information process would address this concern. Further
Commission discussion also concluded that transit riders who want to use evening
service would adapt to the transition. Because of past experience, the Consultant
reported that the lifeline service is the best strategy to serve the primary origins and
destinations in the City within the funding resources.
The following are general comments made by the Planning Commission regarding the
Short Range Transit Plan:
1. Commended the Mass Transportation Committee's work in the in the
preparation of the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP).
2. The Planning Commission hopes the evening service strategy is experimental
that can be evaluated in the future. Discussion also included the Commission's
desire for the City to find the means to improve the pedestrian access on Prado
Road.
Meeting Update`
August 13, 2003
Page 2
3. The greatest value of the SRTP is the information to the Commission to
consider for project approval.
4. Commended the innovative service strategies (e.g. demand area response
transit, express service).
5. The service changes will be an improvement over the current system, and
other improvements will follow.
6. The transit needs will also change as the City's demographics change.
The Commission recommended the adoption of the Negative Declaration and the Short
Range Transit Plan as recommended by the MTC. Also, pedestrian improvements
should be made to Prado Road if there is no direct service to the Prado Day Center.
GPA and ER 102-03: Request to amen a enera an
ement reclassifying seven residential collector streets as local segments, and
en ' onmental review; City of SLO Public Works Department, applicant. (Jake
Huds
After receiving resentation from staff regarding the seven street segments in question,
The Planning mission voiced their concems regarding possible inappropriate
classifications for s ral other street segments throughout the City emphasizing North
Broad Street and th neighborhood streets surrounding Cal Poly. The Planning
Commission voted 6-0 mmissioner Aiken absent) to recommend approval of the
Negative Declaration and p posed amendment to Figure #2 of the Circulation Element.
Additionally, the Commission quested that more streets in the Circulation Element be
evaluated for possible reclassi tion in a timely manner, before the next Circulation
Element update. Five members o the public voiced their support of the General Plan
Amendment, noting their concems ab t excessive speeding in their neighborhoods.
3. 1636 Woodland Drive. R, TR and R 11-01 Tentative tract map to create 23
residential parcels and one open space arcel; consideration of possible rezoning
of the property to R-1-S (Low-Density sidential with a special considerations
overlay); and environmental review (EIR); -1 zone; Bowden Ranch Partners,
applicant. (To be continued to August 27, 20 (Lynn Azevedo)
This item was continued without discussion.
4. 1716 Osos Street. U 18-03; Request to allow a Bed an reakfast Inn in the R-3-
H zone; Suzie Kyle and Neta Gladney, applicants. (Pam Ric
The Commission was supportive of the change in use at this location m a fraternity to
a bed and breakfast. However, there were mixed feelings as to wh er a parking
reduction could be supported by required variance findings. On a vote, the
Commission continued consideration of the Use Permit, with consideration o Parking
Variance, to the meeting of August 27, 2003, with the following direction:
Allen Settle-Short Range Transit Plan Page 1
I �
•_ i
From: "BRETT CROSS"<brettcross@hotmail.com>
To: <asettle@slocity.org>, "C Mulholland" <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jmarx@slocity.org>,
"John ewan" <jewan@slocity.org>, <kschwariz@slocity.org>
Date: Tue, Aug 26, 2003 7:02 PM
Subject: Short Range Transit Plan
CEIVED
I just kind of have to chuckle at staffs solution to resolving the City's
RE
bus systems fare box ratio by charging more for riding the bus. Although AUG 2 8 2003
it's not all that surprising given you've got engineers running the system.
Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with engineers, but my experience SLp CIN CLERK
is that they don't have any sense of selling. The problem is not that the
City isn't charging enough, the problem is that the City's ridership sucks
(if you exclude Cal Poly ridership). In fact if you excluded Cal Poly's
ridership count you'd realize just how poorly the system operates. But
enough on that.
The City needs to hire someone who understands selling. Someone who can
come up with a marketing campaign and develop promotional ideas to get more
people riding the bus. The system's routing and scheduling is good enough
where someone should be able to get more people riding. Give them a set a
goals and pay them for performance. If they don't perform find someone else.
The issue is ridership-the system needs more riders. Raising prices will
only inhibit new ridership. Can you see the vice president of sales for
large retailer in a soft economy recommending to the CEO that in order to
increase revenue the best way is to raise prices?. I don't think so. What
you see is heavy discounting to keep customers. Raising prices in most
businesses reduces total sales and even though the margins may be higher
total profits decline.
You have to understand how people value travel costs and the relationship to
taking the bus. You have a product that most people don't want to use and
raising prices isn't going to encourage them to use it more. Now staff may
say, "well the folks who don't have any other choice will make rate this
work". That's nice. Trying to generate more revenue by forcing the transit
dependent to pay more may solve your short term fairbox issues but in the
long-run will make it more difficult to get more riders who have other
transportation options.
I'm surprised nothing has been said about the Circulation Element and the
modal split objectives. I'm guessing the City is not meeting those
objectives and the impacts that were supposed to be mitigated by meeting
those goals are not be met. You've got a recommendation that is not
consistent with the General Plan. I doubt anyone really cares about that
but I thought I just mention it.
I would suggest you think about how to get more people on the bus and not
how you can squeeze more money out of the pockets of the riders you already
have.
Brett Cross
RED FILE ijcouNCIL TCDD DIR
Z
Z-TIN DIR
G AGENDA 2ACA00 �IRE CHIEF
!]
ITEM # � 'ATTORNEY .Z PO DIR
DA CLERK/ORIG ,'POLICE CHF
O D EADS .0'REC DIR
)� Z nL DIR
�/HR DIR
(Dave Romero-SLO Transit Short Range P`
From: Dan Herron <herrons@silcom.com> RECEIVED
To: <dromero@slocity.org> AUG E:
8 2003
Date: 8/28/03 7:48AM
Subject: SLO Transit Short Range Plan SLS CIT( CLERK
As a transit user and advocate, I ask you to condition the acceptance of
the SLO Transit Plan with staff returning a service schedule that pulses
(brings all bus routes together) at least once an hour, and allows true
memory schedule for all routes. Forty minute headways on Route will
not allow the system to rebuild rider confidence in the system, and
ridership will not recover from the 650,000 annual level to the
1,200,000 rider capacity we know it can accomplish.
The staff report has a curious lack of mention of the community requests
to get back to hourly, memory schedule service. SLOCOG, Caltrans,
CalPoly Student Body President, as well as you yourself, Mayor, and many
other individuals have verbally or in writing requested this consistenly
through the process, yet the staff report summarizes significant
comments without these. No one wants to ride a bus that is planned to
arrive at the transfer point 10 minutes after all other routes have left.
Please put the system back on a simple, rider-friendly basis so it can
be used without having a schedule in hand. There is no extra cost in
setting 60 minute headways to Route 2.
Thank you for visualizing good transit,
Dan Herron
SLO Transit user and advocate
,(]'COUNCIL ®'CDD DIR
la CAO Z FIN DIR
�-ACAO $FIRE CHIEF
jYATTORNEY DPW DIR
�'CLERKlORIG POLICE CHF
[3DEPT EADS -FEC DIR
RED FILE - 0 UTIL DIR
1�'HR DIR
DAMPI G AGENDA
ITEM #