The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/28/2003, PH5 - REVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE NORTH AREA REGIONAL FACILITY (NARF) PARKING AND TRANSIT PROJECT l councit � A awst 28,2003 j acEnaa uEpout h..N� C I T Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Worl Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Associate VV� Austin O'Dell,Transit Manager SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE NORTH AREA REGIONAL FACILITY(NARF) PARKING AND TRANSIT PROJECT CAO RECOMMENDATION: As recommended by the Planning Commission,direct staff to proceed with Site Plan Option`B"as the preferred design option for further study. DISCUSSION Background The North Area Regional Facility (NARF) was established by the City Council as a major City goal with the adoption of the 2001-2003 Financial Plan. On February 19, 2002 the City Council approved two scopes of work for schematic design and environmental services for the NARF parking and transit projects (see Attachment 1, Council Staff Report). Gordon H. Chong and Partners(GHCP)was hired as the City's consultant for both the parking and transit components. The parking component (which is a coordinated effort with the County because they may be one of the users) includes the development of schematic plans for 800 parking spaces within the two-block area bordered by Santa Rosa,Monterey, Toro and Marsh Streets and an investigation of mechanical parking as an alternative to standard structure parking. The entire two-block area is currently under private ownership (see Attachment 2, Property Ownership Map- color versions are included in Council packets). The transit component includes the development of a schematic plan for a consolidated City/County transit center with 14 off-street bus bays on the Shell gas station site _and one alternative schematic plan using a portion of Higuera Street for the transit facility. The approved work program calls for the following tasks to be completed: 1. Conduct project research. 2. Prepare schematic plans and elevations of design options. 3. Conduct a community workshop on design options. 4. Present to Planning Commission for"Preferred Plan"recommendation to City Council. 5. Present to City Council for approval of"Preferred" Plan (subject of this staff report). 6. Prepare an environmental assessment on the preferred plan. Council Agenda Report: North Area Regional Facility(NARF)Parking and Transit Project Page 2_ 7. Conduct property appraisal and prepare cost estimates on the preferred plan. 8. Refine project design based on Council direction and information gained from environmental assessment,property appraisal, and cost estimates. 9. Present preferred plan to Cultural Heritage Committee, Architectural Review Commission, Mass Transportation Committee, and Planning Commission for recommendation to City Council. 10. Present preferred plan to City Council for project approval. Site Plan Options After gathering information about the site and the project components, the consultant developed eight site plan options (see Attachment 3, Options A-H) for Planning Commission review; recommending that the City proceed with site plan Option B, D, or E as the preferred plan. Option B was recommended as the least disruptive to existing businesses (no businesses need to relocate)and the most efficient in terms of space. Option D was recommended as an urban design solution because ground floor commercial uses front Santa Rosa and Monterey Streets. Option E was recommended for being the most flexible in terms of providing both types of parking (mechanical and self-park) and the ability to easily construct the project in phases. The consultant did not recommend proceeding with the other options because they could potentially impact the existing circulation system on Santa Rosa Street (Options A, C, F, H) and Monterey Street(Option F and G). Additional information about the design options and design considerations can be found in Planning Commission staff reports(see Attachment 4). The Mechanical Parking Component The City Council asked that the consultant consider the use of mechanical parking in some or all of the parking for the NARF project. To this end, the consultant visited (at their cost) the Hoboken mechanical parking facility with the City delegation in June to observe a mechanical parking structure in operation. In addition, the consultant has been conducting research and discussing design issues with 5 different vendors of mechanical parking. Each vendor's design contains features that are unique to that vendor. For example, some designs have vehicle access only one side of the building while others have vehicles enter one side and exit the other. Because the costs associated with these features differ, cost estimates for mechanical parking cannot be clearly identified until a specific vendor is chosen. Staff, the consultant, and the delegation that went to Hoboken agree that the mechanical parking concept should be considered further. If Council concurs by directing staff to proceed with a site plan option that includes mechanical parking, the consultant will continue their research of mechanical parking design, costs, users, efficiencies, and reliability. The additional research also can be used by the City should the Council consider the development of a mechanical parking structure at another location in the City. s-a 0 O Council Agenda Report: North Area Regional Facility(NARF)Parking and Transit Project Page 3 Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission received a presentation on mechanical parking and reviewed the eight design options developed by the consultant at two of their recent meetings (see Attachment 4, Planning Commission Staff Reports). The Planning Commission voiced their concern about beginning their review of the North Area Regional Facility(NARF)project after the City Council had narrowed down the potential location of a parking and transit facility to the two-block area bordered by Monterey,Toro,Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets and their strong desire for more information and research in order for the Commission to make an informed decision. After additional discussion,the Planning Commission voted unanimously(Commissioner Cooper was absent)that if they had to make a recommendation to the City Council on one of the Design Options,they would recommend Design Option B as the preferred design plan within the two- block area for the NARF project because this option preserves the important commercial development potential along the Monterey Street corridor. The Planning Commission's recommendation included their preference for the mechanical parking concept once the technology has been perfected and the City can learn from the mistakes of others and the Commission's concern that this two-block area might not be the best location for a parking and transit facility. (see Attachment 5, PC Meeting Minutes for additional detail). Commission discussion focused on the future expansion of the downtown commercial core up Monterey Street and the likelihood that.locating a parking structure in this area would conflict with the City's Land Use Element policy for locating future parking structures at the edges of the commercial core. Staff Comments on Commission Concerns: The Council set the location for the NARF parking/ transit project in July 2001 and thus staff has had no direction to study alternate locations. Staff agrees that the concept of mechanical parking is appealing, but additional research is needed. County Participation The County is partnering with the City in this stage of the NARF project by funding half of the consultant's work on the parking component and participating in the development of the program criteria for the eight design options. County staff has been notified of the public meetings held on the project to date, provided with copies of all staff reports, and informed of preliminary cost estimates. Discussions with County staff are on-going and it is anticipated that County staff will take the City Council's action on this item to the Broad of Supervisors to receive direction regarding how the County should proceed. Property Owner/Public Input The public and property owners within the project's two-block area have been given several opportunities to learn about the project and comment on the eight site plan design options. A community meeting was held in May and meetings with the Planning Commission were held in Council Agenda Report: North Area Regional Facility(NARF)Parking and Transit Project Page 4 June and July. Two members of the public provided comments at the second Planning Commission meeting; both in opposition to the project. In addition, several property owners and neighbors have submitted letters in opposition to the project (see Attachment 6, Letters from the Public)and no property owners have indicated a willingness to sell their property to the City. The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association, and authors of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center have been notified of the project and encouraged to submit comments. Additionally, the County of San Luis Obispo, SLO Transit and Central Coast. Area Transit(CCAT)have been kept apprised of the progress of the NARF project. Consistency with City Plans The Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center contain policies about parking,transit service, and the subject two-block area. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.10: Downtown Parking. There should be a diversity of parking opportunities. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core. Retail uses outside the core (see Attachment 7, Downtown Planning Area map), and professional office developments, may have on-site parking for customers and clients. All options presented allow close and easy pedestrian access across Santa Rosa Street to the core downtown facilities. Circulation Element Policy CI 2.2: City Bus Service. The City should improve and expand city bus service to make the system more attractive, convenient and accessible. The City has recently completed a new bus transit center on Osos Street, but this project would expand service capacity and provide for future growth. Circulation Element Policy Cl 12.7: Additional Parking Structures. Additional parking structures should only be built after a comprehensive parking study (that includes the evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities) is completed and the results considered. The study has been completed. The Council chose to designate locations themselves for future parking. In July 2001, the Council designated the two-block area under study as the next location for a parking structure. The Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center calls for this two-block area to be primarily developed with commercial/office, parking and government uses with a small portion set aside for residential uses (see Attachment 8, Partial Graphic from Conceptual Physical Plan). The Plan identifies a transit center and multi-level parking structure in the area with strong pedestrian connections to County government offices. The Plan also calls for Higuera and Marsh Streets to be converted to two-way streets in this area. Since the Plan shows structured parking on both blocks, any of the options presented would comply. S-4 Council Agenda Report: North Area Regional Facility(NARF)Parking and Transit Project Page 5 Next Steps With Council direction to proceed with a preferred site plan option, the consultant will complete their work on an environmental assessment, property appraisal, and cost estimate for development of the affected property within the two-block area. This work is needed to further identify the possible costs and environmental constraints of developing a transit center and parking structure at this location. The project design will be refined if necessary to address environmental or cost constraints and then the project will go through the environmental review and public hearing process with review by the Mass Transportation Committee, Cultural Heritage Committee, Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council (final approval). Completion of this work will cost approximately $30,000 and is already budgeted. FISCAL IMPACTS Directing staff to proceed with Site Plan Option "B" for further study as described in the approved. work program in the Background section of this report does not have a direct fiscal impact because the City Council has already budgeted $ 300,000.00 for study and design services. Approximately $ 30,000 remains available for completion of the work program. No funds have been allocated for construction of the NARF parking and transit projects. A preliminary cost estimate for the construction of the parking structure component in Option`B" is $23,000,000. This preliminary cost estimate does not include land acquisition, possible business relocation,or soft costs. ALTERNATIVES 1. Direct staff to proceed with one of the other site plans (Design Options A, C-H) developed by the consultant. 2. Direct staff to proceed with one component (parking or transit) of the NARF project. County financial participation would not continue if Council directs staff to proceed with only the transit component. 3. Direct staff to discontinue work on the project (which is currently a Council goal), identify the reactivation of the project as a potential Council goal for the next two year goal setting process, and redirect current staff priorities to the development of the Palm/Nipomo parking structure (which is another Council goal). 4. Other alternatives as directed by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council staff report dated February 19,2002 2. Property Ownership Map Council Agenda Report: North Area Regional Facility(NARF)Parking and Transit Project Page 6 3. Site Plan Options A-H . 4. Planning Commission Staff Reports 5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. Letters from the Public 7. Downtown Planning Area Map 8. Partial Graphic from Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center PROVIDED TO COUNCIL &AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE 11x17 copy of Site Plan Options A-H Color version of Property Ownership Map (:\_Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review(Bochum)\NARF Options#Ldoc - Attachment 1 council 'F ary19,2002 j agenda Repout 1k.' C ITY OF SAN LUIS OB I SPO FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORTH AREA REGIONAL FACILITY(PARKING COMPONENT) SPECIFICATION NO. 90309A CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve and authorize distribution of the North Area Regional Facility (Parking Component) Request for Proposal; 2. Authorize the CAO to award and execute contracts with qualified service providers if the amounts are within budget of$150,000. DISCUSSION Background At its meeting of February 5', 2002, the Council continued approval of the RFP for design and environmental services for the NARF Transit project until such time as the sister study, i.e. the NARF Parking study was before them for consideration. As part of that decision, Council discussed the need to have a synergy created between the two projects and a need to have the two consultant groups (assuming that one consultant does not prevail in receiving both projects) mutually coordinate their design efforts to ensure integration of the two facilities. Staff has taken the liberty of revising both draft RFP's based upon this input and created tasks and objectives in the scope of work for each project to promote coordination and integration of the projects. In March 2001, the Council approved the North Area Regional Facility (Transit) - Alternatives Assessment Study and adopted Alterative C as the preferred site for the NARF Transit Facility. As part of that approval, Council also allocated $70,000 from the General Fund to conduct conceptual level design, investigate hazardous materialissues in more depth (what is called a Phase II study) and complete property appraisals for the transit site. Additional investigation of the parking component of the NARF concept was deferred for inclusion in development of the FY 2001-03 Financial Plan. As part of the Financial Plan and Goal Setting Process for FY 2001-03, Council established the development of the NARF (both Transit and Parking) as a Major Goal for delivery in the current budget cycle. As shown in Attachment 2, Council allocated $240,000 in funding during FY 2001-03 for study, and to prepare the environmental work and schematic level concept drawings associated with the parking component of the NARF project. This RFP is a joint coordinated effort with the County of San Luis Obispo. The City and County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, see Attachment 3, outlining the objectives of working( �" I Attachment 1 Council Agenda Report:RFP for the NARF Parking Design Services Page 2 jointly to address parking issues and deficiencies in the surrounding area of the new County Government building. The net result is this RFP, which focuses not only upon the previous Council adopted concept plan for the NARF project, but also contains work associated with the County's request to potentially utilize the "Bank of America" block as an alternative site for the NARF Parking project. The County has agreed to fund 50% ($75,000)of the estimated budget for the total project. uu wucuwexo.mluurteavuaoun - . u nn Slle { " I — 1 ! .^�xwutensr _ � rn 1 1 _NARF Trnnzitnnd Pnrking Cnnyept Plan Source:North Area Regional Facility(Transit)Final Report(2000),Wilber Smith Associates The NARF parking project is anticipated to be an integral part of establishing this block as the internodal center of Downtown San Luis Obispo for employees, visitors and retail patrons accessing the Downtown area for daily trips from both local and regional origins. y� f- NARF Parking Sites x Courthouse `y 7+� New Gove ment 7�T Center \: S• B l� ocatiou \ � \` Attachment 1 Council Agenda Report:RFP for the NARF Parking Design Services Page 3 Fig ire 1 I—Dnwntnwn Virinity Map The RFP—What's It All About? The consultant chosen for this project will: prepare "to-scale" schematic site plan and related elevations for a parking structures on two alternative sites; conduct necessary technical studies to prepare an Environmental Assessment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) that identifies potential project impacts; present first order construction cost estimates; prepare a report that presents findings and recommendations; and present these recommendations to the City's Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission,the County and City Council for consideration. This RFP solicits proposals to perform schematic level alternative analysis and assessments for two (2) potential sites for the parking garage component of the NARF Parking project. As shown in figure 1.3 the two alternative sites are in relatively close proximity to the NARF Transit location and the proposed County Government Center project. Each of the sites has positive and negative characteristics; which may limit or be cost prohibitive for development of a parking structure. DIM Ezisdng. Can ouseProposed' 0, Transit 0/ \� Center �R New ounty ' -`�P Historic \ Gove � French \ Center Hospital �� Complex ovation 9i '• Fig ire 1 3—Virinity Map Adjacent i nnri Tkes The "Parking Dilemma" Parking in Downtown San Luis Obispo is a dynamic and sometimes controversial issue. The City has identified the need to provide approximately 300 parking spaces in the vicinity of the NARF project to meet the current and future needs of the community and an anticipated major development project in the downtown. Additionally, the County of San Luis Obispo has identified the need to supply approximately 500 parking spaces to meet the needs of its employees and citizens who will be visiting the newly approved �-q Attachment 1 Council Agenda Report:RFP for the NARF Parking Design Services Page 4 -_. and soon to be constructed 97,000 square foot new County Government Center building that is proposed for the southwest comer of Santa Rosa Street and Monterey. Finally, the County of San Luis Obispo Court system has also identified a need for approximately 800 new parking spaces in the future when a planned expansion of their facilities takes place in 7-10 years. Adding these numbers, there may ultimately be the need to provide approximately 1600 parking spaces in the vicinity of the NARF project, and for businesses located east of Santa Rosa Street. As mentioned above, the concept of a joint transit and parking structure has been considered and approved by the Council and Board of Supervisors. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been adopted by both agencies regarding parking solutions in this area. The objective of this study is to analyze and plan for the first public parking structure east of Santa Rosa that will serve these demands. The City has a minimum goal of delivering 800 public parking spaces, which at least meets the needs of the new County Government Center project and the City's needs. Due to property size limitations, and the uncertainty of when the County Court project may be undertaken, the Court's needs should be acknowledged by the consultant, but not planned for as part of this project. Project Description The City and the County have agreed to issue a joint parking study (this RFP) to locate an appropriate space to construct a parking garage or garages to meet combined needs. The preferred solution will be a project site where the combined needs of the City and the County can be met in one parking garage (robotic or standard), impacts of the project can be feasibly and economically mitigated, and the project will fit into the existing and future character of San Luis Obispo; J J \ 10,1 / � t Proposed NARF Transit rViVs_]- Center (Shell Station) r l i Fia ire 1 4—Site A "The:Rpring Toyntn R1nck" This combined structure can be on either, or both, of the two identified sites. For purposes of this exercise, the consultant should also consider the use of Higuera Street between Santa Rosa and Toro 5- i0 Attachment 1 Council Agenda Report:RFP for the NARF Parking Design Services Page 5 Street and determine if alternative street design augments design and function of the adjacent blocks as a mixed use parking structure project. Potential transit alternative sit Aurspace:and be grade could be used fo padnrg purposes. v Historic French Hospital r Property r Figure 1 5 —Site R "Thp Rami of America Block" The City Council has expressed an interest in the possible use of Robotic Parking© or an equivalent. The City is in favor of a concept called Compact Urban Form, which looks to create structured parking in the Downtown in-lieu of numerous surface lots to satisfy parking space demand. The idea of providing twice the parking in a robotic garage in the same space as a standard concrete parking structure has a lot of appeal. This would leave other land available for future development as offices, hotels, commercial or high density residential. If the cost per parking space is about the same and robotic parking can be shown to be technically reliable and operationally cost-effective, the Council would like serious discussion of this option. Finally,the property owner of the majority of properties encompassing Site B is open to the possibility of a joint private-public partnership development of a parking structure on Site B. The property owner of Site B is also open to the possibility of including the parking demand created by his future development in a parking structure(robotic or standard)on Site A. Given the overall demand for parking spaces,the City and County are willing to consider solutions that may include parking structures on each of the two sites. Coordination with NARF Transit design consultant team: If more than one consultant is chosen for work on the separate NARF Transit and Parking projects, it will be the duty and obligation of each of the consultant teams to coordinate architectural styles and integration of project site areas to ensure Attachment 1 J Council Agenda Report:RFP for the NARF Parking Design Services Page 6 uniform development schemes for the blocks. At a minimum, the consultant should anticipate at least two coordination meetings between these development teams to discuss project objectives and integration. Project Components and Milestones: In establishing the design and recommendations for a preferred site for this project,the City anticipates that the consultant will undertake the following activities: A. Evaluate existing conditions to understand current circulation and access patterns, the dimensions of public spaces, and utility locations. B. To the degree possible, contact and meet with project stakeholders to verify project objectives and identify design and planning issues. C. Prepare a dimensioned Schematic Plan that accurately identifies all proposed changes within the project site area that meet its design objectives. After receiving the public's and County response to the various sketch plan alternatives, secure City Council endorsement of a recommended sketch plan and implementation strategy, then proceed with the completion of a final schematic plan for Architectural Review Commission and City Council consideration. D. Sponsor community workshops that solicit input from project stakeholders concerning any sketch plan alternatives (see discussion above) and the final concept plan, and follow up with individual stakeholder contacts for detailed feedback. E. Refine project design based on public, County and City staff input, and any initial direction provided by the City Council. Prepare and submit application and plan materials to the Community Development Dept. necessary to secure final approval from the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission (PC). Given the historic setting of this project; the plans for this project will also need to be reviewed by the City's Cultural .Heritage Committee (CHC) and Downtown Association — Parking Committee. F. Secure City Council and County approval of the project's design once reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission(ARC)and Planning Commission.. G. Prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) that investigates potential environmental constraints to the project site that may affect project design or delivery. Project Schedule: It is anticipated that the draft report will take between five to six months to complete once the notice to proceed is given. The following is the anticipated schedule for the project: Benchmarks Target Dates Issue RFP February 20,2002 Final written requests for March 20,2002 Information Submitted to City Proposals Due April 512002 Complete proposal evaluation April 17,2002 Conduct finalist interviews,if April 26,2002 needed S' 1 a Attachment 1 Council Agenda Report: RFP for the NARF Parking Design Services Page 7 Finalize staff recommendation April 27,2002 Award contract May 10,2002 Execute contract May17,2002 Start work May 20,2002 Complete Work 230 Days FISCAL IlVIPACT Sufficient funds have been budgeted for this project in the FY 2001-03 Financial Plan and via County contribution, summarized as follows: Funding Sources: Parking Fund FY 2001-02 $100,000 County contribution: $75,000 Current Budget: $175,000 Parking Fund FY 2002-03 $140,000 Total Budget $315,000 Project Budget: Proposed Consultant Services $150,000 Contingency $165,000 Total Budget $315,000 The $75,000 County contribution towards the project was unknown at the time of adoption of the FY 2001-03 Financial Plan and therefore not budgeted. A budget amendment will be processed to reflect this change in funding and subsequent reduction in necessary Parking Fund monies to complete this portion of the project. As reflected above, if the proposals come within the $150,000 estimated cost for this work, there will be $165,000 remaining in the two year budget to be used as contingency or allocation towards the next phases of the project that will include final environmental review and more advance design services once a preferred site has been established. ALTERNATIVES The Council may choose to modify the RFP. This alternative is not recommended because it may delay the project. The Council may choose to defer the distribution of the RFP. This alternative is not recommended, because it will delay the project and will ultimately lead to a delay to the construction of improvements at the interchange location. -- -Attach Ent 2 Z� � < z LL a � CL W .j W < W � V/y • -� � ( tT �—i 'fit�i Z 1-}'F'1 •1' I - - •fY t'. ,:� 1. "✓ tom/, 1 f I .rrs0101,:rg. 1 .I_ , 1 4 �, e vf. '. •� 3 L t ,� I � i' If t r � I. •i y�, ( �j- c � y '��tF'��v'. r A o _ i•- t F'' �'�11 ^a.+ 1 Attachment 3 j r h r> , I . _.dam.', c ' !I 3 1 .. \ _ 45.72s+(ieo-oy F I { _______ ___ I II 8 i 91.44_m(900•-a^) HIGUERA Patsy ReEeU!Offke it 4 r r r� r� el' r(.. r' r^ r' o m i , • f 4� I p 29.20m i" u I .I I I ! 1 (76 v. l_. .J - - om �r / J J J J J J J 1 1 __________1 I Transfer - , Compartment U jv7� i r d'Y! /. m ? Potential + H m Residential r " MARSH'_..._. - 11'l c x Option A Attachment 3 L t 4t 44- MoIimT .___. ...... _.....T_ imy .. __.....- ....... T l Xi 1 jet• ---1 --- i . �532M(150'-0") A. . 1 . HIS FRA ie e T¢ .q ------ 30,48m. 100'-0' ooJ 1 C - �►I a ,� !� A R Y fI = } , -. '7-.,--MARSH' --__ 77 Option B Attachment 3 a t • VE _t_•,-.r. MONTEREY_ f '.yam I I 7 I d I I ; a , , _ i I _ I r 0 L _ y - r 5.72M(750:4, _7_____ _____ r p 13 tti.. Gl.G' p , MGUERA - 7 j r _ _�`L �----E-3? '� ,_ ' -._::•� is �: _-" ` .- - - ., _ .I D '; •N�! Poul now f am" / .... _ A . 75.53 i t- Y , —fs4� 1 �... I I I ! I . .I i I �� tP •a - � � 1- . y.tk. � wn Potential ,EI w i Residential y _ ---. I : _ I b<Y4�,L 1�+ ':�. 't ��a�, „i�-..' , •6,,, <R�,/�. Y;G- 4 Option C Attachment 3 44 - -- ---- , -------------- PatsuW Rawl f^ 1 f I I ... I 1 I ' I — E I Ii' Il .�+ TIId I II , I illill I IcluI I I 1 i `r1111:11111 j f - a :45.72m(150-.On l m f. _-- "Tom ooatio❑ � I -- - ---- r• :�� I 6 Y'� f k 4 ,} , I �• 6T I .} �( dw�Qb ,� ��,�'��-?�\�.�'9�+�•� pay a '' Cit- - - Option S-t g Attachment 3 ✓ � _ MONTEREY- --- - ---- r _ r 1 Asa Trandw com, t 0 V r r 1 I I ❑ a � , 4s.72m tiso•.o• i D_______ ________ ______ ________ Dl , i_ 4 S t .--------- t/ t/ t i fTT�i 1 f1T -� i V 1 ____ ____ ' _ y _. _ _ .. MARSH___ ' .tom F :-ia� .'° �-TS. . . i ...: ;r�'•r-.s". : 1��.� t. __t��-. ti- Option E Attachment 2 _ I I _ .MONTEREY —91z?amt604r-o7 aX4 _ �R&Tam' 82ri - t i (21 i 5) (257 W10.6 t ItAMA 1 IR 6.778)m; IL E +y,, t � i � ✓2$ 17T77TI � - ----- ---- -- is ` ---------r----- — �^'`. — �+ ' , 1 I , 1 1 wm 17 y Y ' i f. a.�-/ •\y'- - Com__-_.: Option F Attachment3 y ,.R °ieN. r► .. .73.ISM(2a0'-U7.,,.._....-' �► '•V�Y'...,:c _- ,a ISIS CU RE41 r rt , r I .C, - x'�. I ky7� 'R B.TOarr � - ---i - — �. �•. i� . 0 OOCO I r oom � nn p F- \ o \ -AM& A ff7 n 1 � ✓� r' ' ' �'`EST e j r 1 1 rite jj , f � I 'Y ITTT %.• '//RAJ t�� I - . '.. .� _ I a�Cl;i"'u �i� ':::.� -i .. 'a7.:_.� _.�' -:ti-3 "' •CYt:lr' _ _.�a�. '�„``_5 '. ® t i ® n Attachmen o r -_- RWIMREY- . - r r - 1 _ 1 i I r i t 1 I 1 � • 1 1 O. r i - - -- ' r- - _ •_I_•-_ - ' 5) _ 1 1 `t .29m(SO'. •'�`q HIOUERA VF F � 1 o I y ( o = 11 . A {, rC I n o a Transfer ( Twetable /m= Compartmeft ml^ E Potential r_ 9 Residential y t -__... . .___..__. __.. -. _- ______. p 0 tion H Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Associate, 781-7590�MEETING DATE: July 9, 2003 Austin O'Dell, Transit Manager, 781-7121 FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works FILE NUMBER: N/A PROJECT ADDRESS: Two block area bordered by Santa Rosa, Monterey, Toro and Marsh Streets SUBJECT: North Area Regional Facility (NARF) Parking/Transit Project RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council proceed with Site Plan Option B, D, or E as the preferred design option for further study. BACKGROUND In 1991, a study was conducted that identified 13 potential transit center sites in the vicinity of downtown. Additional studies were done 1993 and 1995. In 2000, Wilbur Smith Associates was asked to examine the City's options for development of an off-street downtown transit center located in the two-block area bounded by Monterey, Santa Rosa, Marsh and Toro Streets. This assumed that the Transit Center, scheduled for construction next to City Hall, would serve as an interim facility until a permanent off-street facility could be built. The report was completed and accepted by the Council and identified the Shell Station site as the preferred location for an off- street transit transfer facility and the remainder of the block as a potential regional parking facility. The Council also identified, as an alternate, the use of Higuera Street between Santa Rosa and Toro for the Transit facility. At about the same time, the City Council had been considering the Draft Pedestrian and Downtown Access Plan for future parking structures. The PDAP identified the area of the new County Administration building and the Shell Station block as the priority region to locate the next garage and the Council agreed making the Shell Station the highest priority site (and eliminating the County Administration site). Thus, two separate projects: a parking garage and a bus transfer center were emerging simultaneously as Council goals. Rather than have two separate consultants — one for each—the Council requested that the two projects be combined so they could be designed to work together but also separately if they could not be built simultaneously. With the two projects combined and their purposes to park, transfer to transit, transfer,from regional to local buses (and vice versa) and the location north of Santa Rosa, came the name North Area Regional Facility (NARF). However, prior to consultant selection, the Council also expanded the scope of the work to add a parking structure alternative to include the block between Santa Rosa, Marsh, Toro and Higuera. San Luis Obispo County agreed to participate in the funding on the project due to their own parking needs associated with the upcoming construction of their new administration building. Planning Commission Mec,Wig-NARF Parking and Transit Project /4tt3ChfYll@ht 4 Page 2 The selected consultant had experience with both types of projects as well as combined facilities. The reason the Commission may not be familiar with this history is that it took place before the City Council voted last year to have the Planning Commission expand their role to review parking and access issues. In the past, the Council has made these types of decisions. Where do the Parking Numbers Come From? The need for 800 parking spaces was arrived at fairly simply. Early calculations showed a need for approximately 1776 parking spaces. This number included about 650 spaces for a future Court expansion and 340 parking spaces for the planned Copeland project. However some reasonable amount of judgment needed to take place as the court project was so far off(not even on the horizon) that it would foolish to design a garage for that purpose. If and when the Courts do expand, they will have to solve their parking problem at that time. By the time the scope of work was written, the Copeland project had been significantly downsized and is now providing most of its parking needs. The County's needs, originally stated at 784, have varied with different calculations. The 1997 draft PDAP projected an existing demand of 250 spaces and a continued new demand of 50 spaces per year, assuming the Marsh Street Expansion was complete. Thus, assuming that was correct, the current City deficit would be 550 spaces (250 existing plus 300 new). However, the Copeland project will be meeting most of those 300 but displacing about 164 existing parking spaces. So some credit must be given for this project. Given the decreased deficit of the Copeland project, the varying forecasts by the County of its needs and lack of any progress on meeting the 1997 deficit of 250; a compromise number of 800 spaces was arrived at. The City needed to give the Consultant something to work with for the purpose of the investigation. Staff did not feel that it was appropriate to suggest 1776 spaces for a scope of work and by discounting the Courts (who had since revised their needs to 800 spaces) and Copeland and decreasing the County's needs simply rounded off at 800 spaces. It is simply too difficult to calculate an exact number. It could be less but more likely could be greater, especially if the current study to rezone certain portions of upper downtown to CC (Central Commercial) are effectuated. Why look at mechanical parking? The term "Compact Urban Form" has long been a motto to guide the philosophy of development of our Downtown. The Downtown Concept Plan encourages the conversion of surface parking lots to parking structures in order to better utilize the limited land available in the Downtown for commercial, office and residential uses. Mechanical parking can provide the same number of parking spaces in half the space of a conventional parking lot and thus promote an even more efficient use of land and thus greater compact urban form. The Council received a presentation on the potential use of mechanical parking, saw the potential benefits and directed that the study include the possibility of mechanical parking providing some or all of the parking requirements. . Attachment 4 Planning Commission Met. .,g- NARF Parking and Transit Project Page 3 There are pro's and con's to mechanical parking. On the positive side is obviously the land use issue (buying only half the land necessary for a standard garage) but also the price per space is about the same as a standard garage, the architectural exterior can accommodate nearly any theme to blend in with the local environment, there is less pollution, less damage to vehicles, safer for women and families, no vandalism and no long lines waiting to exit a parking garage. On the other hand, it is a new method of parking and as such might encounter consumer resistance and thus fail financially. Additionally, if enough exit bays are not provided the long wait (currently inside your car, inside the garage, slowing making your way to the ticket booth) would be in a waiting room awaiting the delivery of your vehicle. No parking garage is designed to handle peak loads— those that occur just after a major event concludes. Both standard and mechanical garages will experience long waits to empty out the vehicles in such a circumstance. In general though, a user of a mechanical garage will park their car and exit the facility just as they would do in a surface lot — taking a minute or two. There would be no driving to upper floors to find a spot and no walking back down stairways to the ground level. Upon return, most mechanical systems deliver the vehicle, ready to drive away, within a two minute period. You would then load the car(kids and shopping) and drive away. DISCUSSION Important Considerations It is important for the Planning Commission to recognize the complex and yet simple nature of this parking and transit center project. It is two projects but hopefully planned to have synergy if ever the two actually get built. Funding for a Transit Facility on either Shell or Higuera sites will not likely become available for many, many years according to Ron DeCarli, Executive Director of SLOCOG. The cost of developing the Shell site will be orders of magnitude greater than that on the Higuera site. Neither will be easy however as both will require property acquisition, and possible hazardous material contamination clean-up. Funding for a new parking structure is much more under the control of the City. Funds can be saved in the Parking Fund, priorities set, rates adjusted, bonds sold, etc. — these are all tools that the Council could use to facilitate a new structure. Thus, it is highly probable that a parking garage will be constructed long before a transit center. The focus of the study was to develop synergistic combinations of transit and parking but the Planning Commission may find that one parking structure from one scenario and a transit facility from a different scenario would be the best fit for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such the Commission should feel free to discuss or recommend a different combination. All combinations are always within one block of each other— by definition— and thus even if a new combination emerges some amount of synergy will still exist. Attachment 5 since that study session, various staff and committee/commission/Council members Visited Hoboken, New Jersey to look at a functioning mechanical facility. The Commission has been asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on a preferred design alternative. Pauline Souza, Gordon H. Chong & Partners, presented a power point presentation of the top three preferred alternatives and gave an explanation on the pros and cons of each alternative. Transportation Associate Mandeville pointed out that the consultant looked at the potential for residential uses on all of the original eight schemes, and Scheme A and H were the best options for adding residential uses along Marsh Street. She noted the area for retail uses on Scheme D is not deep enough to have residential uses included, but there would be enough room on Option E to incorporate residential above retail. Commr. Loh asked if the Commission is to voice their opinion on whether or not this is an appropriate area for a transit site, or if they being asked to follow staffs recommendation and make comments on that. Associate Mandeville replied that the Council is looking for a recommendation, but if the Commission feels strongly about something, they should preface their recommendation with their feelings. Chairperson Osborne suggested that the Commission deal with the Council's request with this very narrow question, and as a separate motion consider the overall situation. Commr. Loh asked if the City owns the land, and wondered why this proposal is being considered on property that has not yet been acquired, since they could not go forward with the project until acquisition occurs. She felt the cost of the land is a key issue, and wondered who is going to use all the parking. She also questioned how many bus spaces are needed. Associate Mandeville responded that the study shows that the users would be a combination of retail users and employees. Ms. Souza explained that the assumption was that 500 spaces would be used by retail users and 300 spaces would be used by area employees. Deputy Director Bochum explained that recommendations on commercial zoning revisions were brought before the Commission two months ago. One of the items that remained unresolved was the recommendation from staff to allow parking in-lieu fees and payments for properties along Monterey Street east of Santa Rosa Street. He felt this may be a logical extension of the downtown core area with greater property land coverage by buildings to zero setback versus providing on-site parking lots to handle their own parking. He noted they are going to consider public parking facilities east of Santa Rosa Street, which could possibly be structured parking. Associate Mandeville clarified that the City presently has five bus bays next to City Hall and noted that the 14 bus bays is their best guess of what they are going to need in 15 years. S5- fig. Attachment 5 Commr. Aiken noted Scheme B requires portions of three properties along Higuera Street off of Site A. He also mentioned that, according to a letter received, the setback of the existing building would be at zero feet the C-R zone. Associate Mandeville replied the letter is correct, but noted this could be modified if they move forward with this design. She mentioned that the people from Shell would prefer this not to happen. Commr. Aiken felt this is not an issue, and noted they do not want the City to acquire the property. Associate Mandeville replied yes. Commr. Aiken noted all the buildings would remain in Option B, but pointed out that the Morgan Stanley property has a building that abuts the existing back of curb and noted there is a building that will be affected. Ms. Souza replied yes, there it a building that would be affected on the Stan Clinton property on Site A. Associate Mandeville explained that since this building is not being used presently as a business, so it would not require a relocation of any existing business. Commr. Aiken questioned if there has been any discussion with property owners on Site A about a possible development of a retail shopping center. Associate Mandeville replied no. She explained that Morgan Stanley property owners are not interested in selling their property. Commr. Aiken questioned when this project is expecting to be developed. Deputy Director Bochum explained there is no planned date on when this would be developed. Chairperson Osborne questioned if cars would be allowed to travel down Higuera Street with Option B. Associate Mandeville replied yes. Chairperson Osborne commented that Option D looks very narrow and wondered if they are anticipating that it be a single story retail use. Ms. Souza responded that the retail use in the parking structure of Option D would be about 25-feet deep, so it could be one- or two-stories high. PUBLIC COMMENTS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, commented that she does not feel the City should change the concept here Q Attachment 5 Karen Corda Adler noted that she owns the property at 1129 & 1131 Monterey Street, where Morgan Stanley had been a tenant until their recent relocation. She mentioned this is a very viable piece of property that has been in her family for many years, and that she wishes to pass it on to her children and grandchildren. She stated she does not want this property taken from her without her consent; and expressed her fear that condemnation proceedings might occur. She noted the Commission received a letter from her attorney listing her concerns with the staff report, and questioned the traffic impact on Monterey Street if this project goes through. She suggested they let the Government Center & Copeland Project get off the ground and see what parking they really need. She noted that staff has been very good about including the property owners in all their studies, but she still strongly opposes this project and the site selection. Commr. Aiken asked if there is a long-term goal for redeveloping that entire block into a retail center. Ms. Adler replied that she does not know of one, but she leases to Rob Rossi and he handles the transactions. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairperson Osborne commented that he supports Option C and questioned if staff has proposed a particular way to register the Commission's views. He suggested they rank each them with their first, second and third choices. Associate Mandeville replied that they could hear from each Commissioner if they have a option or options that specifically stand out, or if they agree with the staff recommendation with the top three and narrow it down from there. Chairperson Osborne pointed out that he has distributed a draft resolution, which he would like to consider as a separate motion following their consideration of these narrow choices that they are being asked to consider. Commr. Boswell commented they should first make a decision as to whether or not mechanical parking is a viable idea. He commented that he supports new technology if it looks workable, but as a commissioner who is trying to represent the interest of the City, he felt this is essentially an untried technology in the U.S. and he is unsure if SLO should be trying to pioneer the use of this technology. He mentioned that he is ignoring the property ownership issues because each of the choices has difficult issues with regard to the property ownership, and noted that he will just stick to the planning issues. He felt traffic circulation implications, Urban Design issues, the effectiveness of the use of the facility and safety are the top four issues to be addressed with regard to the structure. He felt that Option D stood out with regard to all of those issues and makes the most sense from a traffic circulation .standpoint because it is closer to the 101 than moving it onto Site B, and it also makes more sense from an Urban Design because of the ability to have retail surrounding the use, and because it is going to serve as the new government center. He felt this location would make more sense when referring to 9'-5Z Attachment 5 fewer road crossings and more direct access for the user, and stated that he strongly supports Option D because of these issues. Commr. Loh commented that this Commission should know how this mechanical garage works. Commr. Caruso pointed out that they received a description on how this mechanical garage worked at the NARF meeting and thought they were going receive feedback from the contingency who went to Hoboken to observe the mechanical garage in action. Deputy Director Bochum explained they had a debriefing last week with the contingency and the overwhelming consensus was that the technology and the concept of the automatic garage fit very well in Hoboken. The issues they brought back were the very real issues of putting that project out to bid, as well as a number of complications, most notably the software issue. He stated that he did get a positive feedback from those who visited Hoboken with a number of items requiring follow up information. Commr. Loh noted the Hoboken garage can house 312 cars, the land area is only 100 feet by 100 feet and seven stories high, but noted they could be underground. She mentioned a few positive points of these garages such as no ventilation is needed and very few employees are needed to operate it, but felt the cost of the land is expensive and the steel in the structure is very costly. She described briefly how the parking structure works. She commented that if Site A & B is what they are looking for to build a parking structure, then robotics is the way to go because of limited land in this particular location. Associate Mandeville stated that Council would like an indication from the Commission that if this is something they should look at now, something they should look at in the future, or maybe not look at it at all. Commr. Aiken felt that a parking structure and transit center are not necessarily the highest and best use for prime downtown property. He felt hey should keep Site A intact, and noted his preference to Option E because it has a combination of self-park and mechanized parking. He felt the mechanized parking would probably be used by workers in the near vicinities and the self-park would be available for those who are unfamiliar and less likely to want to use a mechanized system. He did note that it is taking up a very large area of Site A and stated that he likes Plan B the best of these three options because it retains the majority of Site A. Commr. Christianson commented that the City is going to need more parking, but is not sure if 800 spaces are needed, especially if it is for employees because they could easily walk a few blocks. She felt mechanical parking is something they should look at in the future, but was not sure they should be the first ones on the block. She concurred with CommissionerAiken's comment that the site of a transit facility in the heart of their downtown would not be the best location. She felt that Option D is the best Urban Design, but has condemnation issues and it would be very expensive. She stated she would then go to Option B because it is the least disruptive and the most efficient use of their land if they are going to put something like this downtown. Attachment 5 i Commr. Loh commented that Monterey Street is very important because it leads to the County Government Center and City Hall and felt that these garages should not be allowed on Monterey Street because the land is too valuable, so Option E would be out. Option D has too large of a parking structure. She commented that she would like to see Site A or Site B preserved, but noted that Option D is using all of Site A and Site B. She expressed support for Option B because Site A would stay intact. She noted that she does not support the 14 bus bays along Higuera Street and suggested they reduce it to eight bus bays. Commr. Caruso moved that (1) mechanical parking is a preferred option when the technology is perfected and the City can learn from a substantial body of experience from elsewhere; (2) the Commission questions the concepts of mixing this transit center with this parking garage for these three reasons, (a) that they do not believe that it acknowledges the future development of this area in a more intense commercial development, (b) that there is commercial core expansion up Monterev Street which will take place and that parking requirements beyond this idea are going to be needed in the area, (c) we are supposed to be parking on the fringe of downtown and this is not on the fringe of downtown; (3) if they have to make a recommendation and chose an option it would be Option B because it. preserves the important commercial development potential on the privately owned lands and also along the important Monterey corridor. Seconded by Commr. Aiken. Commr. Caruso spoke to the motion and noted his observation that the commission does not like this idea, so why give a false pretense to the Commission that they are recommending an option, which he felt no one feels comfortable with. Chairperson Osborne stated that he had proposed making a separate motion and that he felt this is a bad location and does not think the need for the parking has been justified. He felt it certainly goes against their General Plan and a Pedestrian Downtown Plan should be prepared before they entertain a concept like this. He expressed support for Option D because it gave some weight to the need for parking for the employees and questioned what it would cost per person. He felt they could introduce this into the bus system, which could provide a way to get the 300 County employees to their jobs at the same time. He also mentioned that he chose Option D because it has a self-park, which is most likely to serve the needs of the shoppers. He did not support Option E because it did not have the full compliment of bus bays. He noted if they are going to build a transit facility, it should incorporate the Greyhound Bus System and in long-term should have the Amtrak Station end at Monterey Street so they could include the train as well, which he felt would be a fully integrated plan. Deputy Director Bochum spoke to the motion primarily number 2 and noted in this plan it states, "A new transit center should be located at Santa Rosa between Monterey and Higuera Streets; the center should include a multi-level parking structure and the center and parking structure should have strong pedestrian connections to any County offices located across Santa Rosa Street. Higuera and Marsh Streets should be converted to two-way streets in this area." He stated they are entirely consistent with the concept plan and noted this is one of the reasons the Council established the NARF concept as a major goal a number of years back. S Scv,� Attachment 5 Chairperson Osborne felt that the staff presentation is being contradicted, and the status of the Downtown Concept Plan is hazy and has never officially been ratified, which this has been a question that the Planning Commission has raised repeatedly. Commr. Loh concurred with Chairperson Osborne, but noted the staff report is not contradicting because there is one excerpt from Downtown Concept Plan included. AYES: Commr. Aiken, Caruso,.Osborne, Loh, Boswell and Christianson. NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Cooper REFRAIN: None The motion carried, 6:0. Peggy Mandeville- North Area Regional cacility — Page 1 i Attachment 6 From: R Schrage<slotownbob@yahoo.com> To: <Pmandeville@slocity.org> Date: 7/9/03 8:10AM Subject: North Area Regional Facility Dear Peggy-please forward this to Planning Commission members and City Council Members. We would like to voice our objections to the planned North Area Regional Facility location, particularly the schemestoptions considering emptying into Marsh Street. It would increase the traffic volume and street noise to an unacceptable level. As it now stands several cars an hour turn in front of our house on Marsh Street, making us wait to to move our car into traffic. Can you imagine what it would be like if several cars a minute(all day long)would spill unto our street? We influenced the City to put in a pedestrian walkway on Toro Street because speeders wouldn't allow us to cross the street. That hasn't helped much. We don't see how the added congestion would make a street where we have already witnessed accidents and wrong way drivers any safer. Our house is a master list historic resource residence and is as much a gem to the city as it is to us. It will be turned from a usable historic residence into a quaint visual treat if either vehicle egress onto March Street or added bus use is put into place. We also voice our concern that you are to eager to embrace a relatively untried technology that is costly, slow in vehicle egress and subject to embarrass the city more than the billions of dollars that the Governor has squandered on utility purchase schemes, if even one of the objections[pointed out at the community meeting and previous planning meeting]comes to pass. We don't think you have considered not just the possibility of technical failure and maintenance failure, but potential of cost overruns and underutilization of the facility (meaning revenue loss)or heavy utilization (meaning traffic congestion). We also hope that you won't consider one of the consultant/speaker statements at the previous meeting, that the old French Hospital/Sanitarium will likely be tom down for not meeting earthquake standards, is supported by the City Council. Over time, with City growth, more parking is needed, A 700-800 parking space facility, at this location, would cost$20-30 million at the current location, hardly the money a responsible City Council should encumber our less than 50,000 residents to shoulder. Other sites, such as the current Stanley Motors dealership which will be vacated should be reviewed. There is space along the Railroad District corridor. Weekday use of Church parking lots (with permission and compensation that would be less costly than building new lots) could be considered. Several smaller lots ringing the City could be built more cost-effectively and create less congestion. Finally, the already completed bus transit stops adjacent to City Hall appear to be working. Why create a new transit site? I know the community might like to be thought of as pioneering and innovative, but if this project does not produce those results you have encumbered us with debt and added nothing for the residents or visitors. Thank you, Zoey and Bob Schrage Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL- Now only $29.95 per month! Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAY T.3 M 21105 Old Well Road Los Gatos , California 95033 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone/Fax : 408/353-4677 May 8 , 2003 Planning Commission 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo , California 93401 RE : Study Session Two-Block Area Bordered By Monterey , Toro, Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets Hearing Date : May 14 , 2003 It is my feeling that the study of Monterey Street should be extended to include all of the C-R Zone area as this is a one- street (Monterey) zone area north of Toro Street. The parking requirements should be consistent within the zone .., for planned future development. Monterey Street is the major entry to San Luis Obispo from the north , and it was planned years ago to provide ingress and egress for the present and future development of the City. There- fore, all of it should be included in this study . To study this one street at a later date would not only be time consuming but costly to the City. Thank you for including my comments on the issue in the record for the May 14, 2003 Public Hearing . Sincerely yours , Kurt B. Anslinger 7___�� Representing the following addresses : 1232-1244 Monterey Street KBA/ja S-�s Attachment 6 Karen Corda Adler 1676 Fredericks St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 543-7213 June 30, 2003 _ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo .JUN 3 0 MW 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Review of the North Area Regional Facility parking& transit site design options To Mr. Orval Osborne, Chair, and the Members of the Planning Commission: I would like to talk with each of you about my concerns regarding the site selections of the proposed NARF project. Since I own property on Monterey St., I have some very real concerns. You received a letter from my attorney last month listing our objections but I would like to meet with you in person before your July 9 meeting. Please get back to me at 543-7213 or fudge805@charter.net. I look forward to hearing from you and hope you have some time to fit me into your very busy schedules. Thank you, Karen Corda Adler F ! Attachment 6 ERNST AND MATTISON DON.A.ERNST A LAW CORPORATION Founded 1980 RAYMOND E.MAT71SON 1020 Palm Street . IDJU0 A. "IKE"GONZALEZ P. O. BOX 1327 CHRLSTOPHER D. EDGINGTON San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Tel: (805) 541.0300 Fax: (805) 541-5168 July 08, 2003 Planning Commission Via Hand Delivery City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: North Area Regional (Transit)Facility Project(NARF) July 09, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting, Agenda Item No. 2 To Mr. Orval Osborne, Chair, and the Members of the Planning Commission for the City of San Luis Obispo: This office represents Ms. Karen Adler, owner of the properties located at 1129 and 1131 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, ("Adler property"), which may be adversely affected by the proposed North Area Regional (Transit) Facility Project ("NARF project"). This letter supplements the comments and exhibits we have previously submitted on Ms. Adler's behalf in our letter of May 14, 2003. Please include this letter in the administrative record for the Planning Commission's consideration, and for the City Council's subsequent consideration, of the NARF project. While the present Staff Agenda Report touches upon many of the relevant pros and cons of various design configurations proposed for this project, any decision narrowing the possible design choices is premature at this time, since too many important questions remain unanswered. As Staff concedes, the money to pay for the construction of this proposed project will not be available for"many, many years."Staff Report at p. 3. Staff also concedes that it may be appropriate for the Commission to defer this decision to permit further study before proceeding with any particular design option. Id. at 6. Rather than unnecessarily rush blindly ahead, several key issues merit consideration before design choices are cast aside. Inter alia: Parking Needs Uncertainties: Staff admits that the 800 parking space target is somewhat arbitrary,noting in the Agenda Report that true parking needs "could be less but more likely could be greater." Staff Report at 2. In light of this uncertainty, and in light of Staff's further concession that this project will not actually be built any time soon, (funding will not be available for"many, many years"), deferring detailed study of particular design options is obviously S� Attachment 6 4 Planning Commission Comment Letter July 08, 2003 Page 2 of 3 appropriate. It is unjustifiable to expend the Planning Commission's,the City Council's, and the taxpayers' time and resources to study options in detail, only to discover later that they are insufficient to meet City parking needs. When sufficient funding becomes a present reality, parking needs can be more accurately predicted. Mechanized Parking Uncertainties: Mechanized parking is an important feature of 6 of the 9 original design options. Staff correctly notes important benefits which might be gained from pursuing a mechanized parking design: a smaller footprint, requiring less land acquisition expense; better potential for architectural blending; less air pollution; less fender bender, vandalism, and door-ding damage to vehicles; safer operations, i.e. no one hiding in the shadows as someone approaches their car alone at night; and the health benefits from avoiding waiting in exit lines in a confined space with idling vehicles. Staff further insists that these benefits can be attained for the same construction costs per space as a building a conventional parking structure. Yet at least two important questions remain unanswered in the studies to date: first, what are the relative operational and maintenance costs of mechanized and self-park garages; second, how will residents and visitors to this area acclimate to the use of this new parking solution. Elimination of certain options should not occur without at least a preliminary analysis of these issues. Environmental Remediation Uncertainties: As discussed in our May 14 letter, the City's consultants have identified important environmental issues which undeniably will influence the selection of any particular design configuration. There is known contamination beneath the former Toyota property, and there is likely contamination beneath the Shell Station property. State and Federal transportation funding opportunities may be lost if improvements are to be constructed over contaminated areas. See Wilbur Smith Report at pp.5-1 and 7-4. Despite the great cost of environmental remediation projects, 2 of the 3 options recommended by Staff's report site the parking structure and/or commercial/retail construction over contaminated areas. Option D constructs retail space on the Shell Station property and sites the parking structure across the Northern portion of the contaminated Toyota property. Option E also sites the parking structure across the Northern portion of the contaminated Toyota property. No assessment of the contamination, estimate of remediation expense, or analysis of State and federal funding impacts has yet been made. Indeed there is not even any mention of these,important issues in Staffs Report. These and other uncertainties should be addressed before a particular design option is selected for submission to the City Council for detailed study. s' Attachment 6 Planning Commission Comment Letter July 08,2003 Page 3 of 3 Sincerely, ERNST AND MATTJSON Raymond E. Mattison cc: Via U.S. Mail Dave Romero,Mayor City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Christine Mulholland, Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 John Ewan, City Council Member City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ken Schwartz, City Council Member City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Allen K. Settle, City Council Member City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 BAKER Attachment 6 HOSTETLEH LLP COUNSELLORS AT LAW 333 SouTH GRAND AvENUE • SurrE 1800 • LOS ANGELES,CALtFORN1A 90071-1523 (213) 975-1600 • FAx(213)975-1740 LYDIA W.LEE WRuER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER(213)475-1603 &MAI.;I1.EE@BAIMRLAW.COM June 20, 2003 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Peggy Mandeville Transportation Associate Public Works Department City of San Luis Obipso 955 Mono Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: North Area Regional Facility(NARF) Parking/Transit Project and the Concept of Mechanical Parking— 1101 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California Dear Peggy: We represent Shell Oil Products US ("Shell") in connection with the proposed taking of Shell's property by the City of San Luis Obispo (the"City") in connection with the City's plan to create an integrated downtown transit transfer center with a parking garage. We have reviewed the Planning Commission Agenda Report Item#2 prepared for r the meeting on May 14, 2003, which you emailed to our client, and the eight design options set forth therein; as revised in accordance with the drawings you sent to us via facsimile on June 17, 2003. We understand that seven of those options involve the condemnation of all or a portion of Shell's service station located at 1101 Monterey Street(the "Property"), four(4) of which propose to take 75 feet of Shell's Property on the Higuera Street side to within approximately 3 feet of a building in the service station and three (3) of which propose to take 100% of Shell's Property. This letter is intended to provide Shell's comments to these design options and how they will affect Shell's Property. Pursuant to our teleconference with you on June 17, 2003, design options D,F and G involve the total taking of Shell's Property. Shell does not wish to sell any portion of the Property to the City. Shell's service station located on the Property is successful and very valuable to Shell. Any condemnation of this Property will be very costly to the City. You informed us that design options A, B, C and H involve a partial taking of Shell's Property(all of them involve the taking of 75 feet of Shell's Property from the Higuera Street GALAdata1\Iw15402\76600 E.quiva\SLO COndemnation\MandevWe ltrldoc CINCwN • CLEVELAND • COLUh US • COSTA MESA • DENVER • HOUSTON • Los ANGELES • NEw YORK • ORLANDO • WAsf arm International Affiliates—SAo PAULO,BRAZIL • JUAREZ,MEXICO D www.bakerlaw.com Attachment 6 Ms. Peggy Mandeville June 20, 2003 Page 2 side). We believe that the City's plans for partial condemnation will significantly impact Shell's business. First and foremost, this partial taking will reduce the driveway on Santa Rosa by 10 feet, severely affecting access to the station from Santa Rosa Street by reducing it from the standard 35-feet driveway to a 25-feet driveway. Unless this driveway is increased to the standard 35 feet by expanding it westerly, the station will not be accessible from Santa Rosa and hence, Shell's business will unlikely be as profitable as it is today. Second, the taking of approximately 75 feet of Shell's Property on the Higuera Street side will bring the distance between Shell's building and the Property line to 3 feet. We are aware that the fire department requires that there be at least 10 feet between the property line and an improvement in the property. Third, Shell would have to relocate the waste fill tank currently located within the portion of the Property proposed to be taken by the City and such relocation would be costly as well. Lastly, vehicular congestion at the comer of Higuera Street and Santa Rosa Street indicated in your drawings will likely impact the flow of business coming into Shell's station and negatively impact Shell's business. The drawings we received from you on June 17 indicate that one (1) design option (option E) will leave Shell's Property intact. Our client was informed during the May 13, 2003 meeting with the City that design option E might be later modified to eliminate the two (2) driveways on Shell's Property on Higuera Street to allow for additional bus parking spaces. However, during our teleconference on June 17,2003, you confirmed to us that design option E will leave Shell's Property intact as shown in the drawings and that the two driveways on Higuera Street will not be eliminated. In the event design option E is revised to involve elimination of Shell's driveways on Higuera Street, we object to such design option as such elimination will potentially significantly reduce the flow of traffic into the Property. These are some of our initial concerns and we anticipate that more issues will arise as we find out more information about this project. Based on the information currently made available to Shell, Shell objects to design options D, F and G because Shell's business on the Property is very successful and Shell wishes to remain on the Property. Shell objects to design options A, B, C and H for the reasons stated above but is open to working with the City towards a resolution of the problems presented by these design options and their impact on Shell's business. Thank you for your consideration of this letter. Very truly yours, Lydia W. Lee cc: Tom Roberts, Esq. Mr. Jim Alley Mr..Robert N. Mustain Mr. John Cirone GALAdatal\Iw15402\76600 Equiva\SLA CondemnationWandeviRc ltr2.doc r" ..1f � P' ! �P•(11 P•I1 C - - �IIIIIIIIIID dillillawit 1110 t■r IIO -• oil `ul n1191L111111 II II�1�� ■:n nmanl_I''\1► �� :Uln; ■... � nlc ��= Illv■■np � rte■ _ ,. �� -110 s!i �'Ja 1111. .— �; C .■ .7 .. ✓,rya ��%i�'.1111. �� i,\�� "/��- ?- 1• ��i^�O\��-'�ii��\�` �„� , `��♦�.��_111=.- ��• � ,,:, ♦ a� ,\y\ \a � . ..�� - -- tt h, -111x• '�,`+�'�\O�\ ,t♦ • �O\•` y -111 ■r � ��t��, lllitill. i:�♦ .A��.��`t� tev ►��•�` ♦``\�`�� ♦O`♦ J. 61�N VA ,, s �O O j,. \♦ ,♦ ♦i �� NN i `��\.�\y ��•i• o�j,�✓O .�,i �,�\\Cyt ;y�;```. !� ��r♦ aQ/i' _iii ' C�i �.� \`�i�i` w�•.�- r � �•'' \\,I I I `\� 1 �i �` \\yam ♦\ ��` rs.�' 1 \�� ♦\1yy\y ��``�� 1�1 ""•ISL' !9111 BIIiI 11111 111111 °1111 !■! \-= r■ � � 111 .51111 =i_ 1: a e6W11_ ■'_ •ql� 191: 1111= - u� V-1 �i.. �.�■ �_ �mlh= - __ _III =n� _ n'j' '- -♦ _ _ _ i i I i ' L I IT•' V = :� a ' � � I �in In � . •-`�,.1�.1 r r C.�V y f•: �y sue77 •5��t f\ �� ti�� yr MAi fiI a'. aZ. ir "4Wtt t I mil �� r -- ^•• 'R� � L i�t' � ` �- �l�F �� ti+i•� yr�ni 1� i I _ � -� u ,�� ._�A" �..t'eil '••".'. lam, 31 tip 1A �' '�^� *A�- ;yt 'fin-•�s.r-�{� � jsl /ii f/J � k ��rL+N rT�� •J q �` i� :Y+' Pti.�° .1�.�\��.\l R.r �.,p 1,-�:7� r�11 , i � L'r��\ y �XtiS �'r",1• ,�iC^J`i • iI' !�i' � i Ia�fl�.• I�f f. y■ "r�� ,fA p hl'� 1h d r y��-r..r mow+ '?1jI: .i .�' a. .A iP' `' y. / Ill J n {f��r+ �r•�': p' �i�! II � .'•�'�: I l,. �1 j - �. �i� {{�� r`�• �t�l�p �tl II.� ulr Ik.� t.' • ��. moi•_ .ti r�.-n r^1�� rer �r .. ' ..-. r •� ��i f. .i�� tC'iirva .F .,1 r. C7 ti. t � a' r��' <�3 r n 1 k y� { NS 4`? r• 'f'i .7• !1 y 141, affil. I1•ylF. r �`f' ! '6 k'� i t i '? • y.i ' .ri r IN .t. -.v o rlG y r/ ��A�,)`�`, "*��'I+�', iir yai -fa ...r•;�. Pi� � , r i � l+ x. . rr l I 1 r f� • _ r 'ICV.CONCI':I F IAN , w •a.`3 e.'•v�� NGN/Commrrrr•.r. ifs 'I� .(i�ff.I 1-+}��) • ` j�:.C'��1�'.�i.�f� '_ F ` �'� Planning Commission M, 'ig-NARF Parking and Transit Projec Attachment 4 Page 4 Santa Rosa Street Barrier When the Planning Commission last reviewed this item (see Attachment 1, Planning Commission report), several commissioners raised the concern that Santa Rosa Street is a difficult street for pedestrians to cross given the width of the street and the volume of traffic.. While everyone feels that Santa Rosa is the downtown's widest street is it actually 10 feet narrower than Marsh Street, but it does carry the combined volumes of Higuera and Marsh Streets. However, the idea of a "barrier" is more related to the concept of the downtown ending at Santa Rosa, rather than a physical barrier. Santa Rosa (in the downtown) is actually smaller than other major arterials elsewhere in the City (including Santa Rosa toward Foothill). Pedestrians cross all those arterials safely and, especially along California and Foothill, in greater numbers than in the downtown. Given adequate timing for pedestrian crossing movements, pedestrian crossing of Santa Rosa should not be an issue. The Downtown Concept Plan (see Attachment 2) shows a combined parking and transit site north of Santa Rosa and a redevelopment and expansion of the downtown north of Santa Rosa. Thus as we grow our City, we simply have to change our expectations that Santa Rosa is no longer a barrier but simply another arterial we must cross to find more shopping, transit and parking opportunities. Status of Stover's Sanitarium (the old French Hospital) The historic Stover's Sanitarium at the corner of Marsh and Toro Streets is on the City's Master List of Historic Resources, and is a Class 3 building (eligible for the National Register). Its historic listing and eligibility for the National Register affords a measure of protection through the CEQA process as well as the City's preservation procedures. Nevertheless, historic buildings can be demolished provided the building's removal is either: a) not a significant adverse impact, or; b) the impacts are mitigated to less than a significant level and the applicant gets ARC or City Council approval for the building's removal. However, given the preponderance of City policy to preserve historically listed properties, it is unlikely that the City would support demolition. Thus, all alternatives for the Bank of America block propose to maintain the historic structure. Tour of Mechanical Parking Facility On June 22 and 23, a delegation of six people (two City Council members, one Planning Commissioner, one Downtown Association member and two staff members)toured the mechanical parking facility in Hoboken New Jersey. The delegation toured the facility, observed it in use, and interviewed the users and City officials. Staff will provide the Commission with a summary of the tour at the Planning Commission meeting and members of the delegation have been invited to the meeting so they also may provide comments. PIanning Commission M, ig-NAU Parking and Transit Projec Attachment 4 Page 5 Inclusion of Residential Uses The consultant has reviewed each design to evaluate the appropriateness for incorporating residential uses into the parking and transit design. The consultant concluded that residential uses would best be located on Marsh Street and incorporated them into "leftover spaces" in Options A, C, and H. Residential uses could be incorporated into other designs (ie. Options D- G), however an additional acquisition of land would be needed to accomplish this. Residential uses could also be incorporated into Option B, either above future retail on Monterey Street or on Marsh Street reducing the capacity of the mechanical parking structure. Where are we now? The Consultant, Gordon H. Chong and Partners, has developed eight alternatives (see Attachment 3) that use all variables assigned by the City Council. Two basic transit centers are studied—the Shell Station site and the Higuera Street site and the two blocks designated by the Council are also presented. Standard parking garages and mechanical parking garages are intermixed to show various possibilities. Of the eight, staff is recommending three for recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council for further evaluation. Option B. The mechanical parking structure (807 cars) is located mid-block between Santa Rosa and Toro Street with the entry from Higuera Street and the exit onto Marsh Street. The transit component is developed along Higuera Street (14 buses). A retail and/or office component can be developed east of the parking structure on Higuera Street. In this scheme, the parking and transit components are located in areas that are currently used for surface parking and vehicular circulation. The 137 public and private parking spaces lost with this design can be made up in.the new parking structure resulting in a net gain of 670 parking spaces. The consultant considers this option to be the least disruptive to existing businesses (no businesses need to relocate) and the most efficient in terms of use of space (the transit center maximizes its use of the Higuera Street frontage utilizing a portion of the right of way and the parking structure maximizes its use of the center of the block leaving a majority of the street frontage for commercial or office development). Option D. The self-park parking structure (798 cars) is located on Monterey between Santa Rosa and Toro Streets with entries and exits on Monterey and Toro Streets. The transit component is developed along Higuera Street (13 buses). To reduce the mass of the parking structure, provide a pleasant pedestrian experience and continue the commercial corridor on Monterey Street, new retail space has been incorporated into the design along Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets. Also, a public park/plaza has been provided along Santa Rosa Street between the retail space and the transit center. The 36 public and private parking spaces lost with this design can be made up in the new parking structure resulting in a net gain of 762 parking spaces. The consultant considers this option to be the best in terns of urban design because ground floor commercial uses front Santa Rosa and Monterey Streets. Additionally,the transit center and Planning Commission M! ig-NARF Parking and Transit Projec Attachment 4 Page 6 parking structure are considered compatible uses which benefit from being located next to each other. Option E. The hybrid mechanical and self-park parking structure (780 cars) is located at the southeast comer of Toro and Santa Rosa Streets with access for the mechanical parking on Monterey Street and access for the self-park on Toro Street. The transit component is developed along Higuera Street (8 buses). Retail space on Monterey Street screens the parking from the street providing a more enjoyable pedestrian experience. The 36 public and private parking spaces lost with this design can be made up in the new parking structure resulting in a net gain of 780 parking spaces. The consultant considers this option to be the most flexible in terms of providing both types of parking and the ability to easily construct the project in phases (ie. mechanical constructed prior to self park). This option also allows the transit center and parking facility to be expanded onto the Shell station property in the future should the need arise. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may determine that further study is needed before the Commission can make an acceptable recommendation. If that is the case,the Commission should include in their motion of a recommended option that the Commission-recommends further study prior to proceeding with a preferred option. ATTACHMENTS IAt4 b w,._. t. n].,... :__ -•_��: �+ �F f n r._—te_ 9043 KATransportation ProjeaffransitTurrent Projects\NARF Parking Structure\Design\Planning Comission Report#2.doc Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OI3isPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Associate, 781-7590 MEETING DATE: May 14, 2003 Austin 0 Dell, Transit Manager, 781-7121 FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works FILE NUMBER: N/A PROJECT ADDRESS: Two block area bordered by Santa Rosa, Monterey, Toro and Marsh Streets SUBJECT: Study Session to introduce the North Area Regional Facility (NARF) Parking/Transit Project and the Concept of Mechanical Parking RECOMMENDATION Review and discuss the design options and concept of mechanical parking. No formal action may be taken at a study session. Staff will return to the Commission at a future public hearing to request the Commission's recommendation on a preferred design option. BACKGROUND In March 2001 the City Council approved the concept of creating an integrated downtown transportation center in the blocks bounded by Santa Rosa, Monterey, Toro and Marsh Streets (see Attachment 1, Map of Study Area). This concept, called the North Area Regional Facility (NARF), would ultimately become the transit transfer center and be integrated with a parking garage to promote ridesharing and transit use. As part of the 2001-03 Financial Plan, the City Council authorized the hiring of consultants to develop schematic plans for the parking and transit facility within the two-block area north of Santa Rosa Street. One consultant, Gordon H. Chong and Partners, was hired for both the parking and transit components. The parking component (which is a coordinated effort with the County because they will be one of the users) includes an analysis of alternative sites within the two block area, design of schematic plans and preparation of an environmental assessment. The design objectives for the parking component include: a. Provide 800 parking spaces; and b. Improve transit and parking integration in the downtown area; and C. Promote use of alternative transportation and ride sharing to meet City Circulation Element modal-split objectives; and d. Provide an attractive durable facility that enhances that area's urban design and is safe and comfortable to use during the day or night; and e. Investigate mechanical parking design concepts as an alternative to standard structure parking. The transit component includes the development of a schematic plan for a consolidated transit S" Planning Commission Stu' Session-NARF and Mechanical Park AttaChment + Page 2 _ center on the Shell gas station site and one alternative schematic plan using a portion of Higuera Street. The design objectives for the transit component include: a. Provide 14 off-street bus bays; and b. Provide easy to use queuing spaces for SLO Transit(City) and CCAT (County) buses that meet current and future needs (20 year time frame); and C. Provide for the safe mixing of pedestrians, busses, bicycles, and private vehicles within the site area and to nearby destinations such as the County Government Center across Santa Rosa Street; and d. Provide support facilities including restrooms and space for on-site transit pass sales, distribution of schedules and other transportation information; and e. Provide an attractive durable facility that enhances that area's urban design and is safe and comfortable to use during the day or night. DISCUSSION Mechanical Parking Mechanical parking is a relatively new concept in parking design using an existing technology- elevators. Mechanical parking allows vehicles to be stored in approximately half the space of a self-park garage because there is no need for drive aisles, ramps or space for people. The system operates with a series of elevators moving vehicles vertically and horizontally into storage bays (see Attachment 2,Parking Brochure Sample). There are numerous mechanical parking systems in operation.throughout the world, however there are only two in operation in the United States: one in Hoboken,New Jersey and one in Washington, D.C. A City delegation(including one member of the Planning Commission) will be visiting the Hoboken residential parking facility in June. The delegation will tour the facility in use and interview its users. At the Study Session, the Commission should provide staff with questions they would like to be asked of the users and the developer of the parking facility. Design Options The consultants have prepared nine different design options for review and comment. These options illustrate how a parking and transit facility can be developed on various portions of the two-block area. Several businesses and properties are impacted by each option, however the historic Stover Sanitarium building (Old French Hospital)remains with each design. At the Study Session, the Commission should ask questions about the nine different design options and request additional information from staff if needed for the Commission to make their recommendation on a preferred option at a future public meeting. Option A. Mechanical parking structure located at the northeast corner of Higuera and Santa Rosa behind new retail space fronting Higuera Street. Mechanical parking structure is configured as a "drive-thru" with transfer compartments (800 cars). Transit component developed along Higuera Street(14 buses). Option Bl. Mechanical parking structure (780 cars) at the northeast comer of Higuera and Santa Rosa behind new public plaza and retail space fronting Higuera Street. Mechanical parking is S'Dv Planning Commission Stu" Session-NARF and Mechanical Park' 1 Attachment 4 Page 3 � configured as a one way in and one way out system. Transit component developed along Higuera. Street(14 buses). Option B2. Mechanical parking structure (780 cars) located mid-block between Santa Rosa and Toro Street with entry from Higuera Street and exit onto Marsh Street. Transit component developed along Higuera Street(14 buses). Option C. Self-park parking structure at the northeast corner of Higuera and Santa Rosa (780 cars). behind new retail space fronting Higuera Street. Transit component developed along Higuera Street (14 buses). Option A Self-park parking structure on Monterey between Santa Rosa and Toro (798 cars) behind new retail space fronting Monterey and Santa Rosa Streets. Transit component developed along Higuera Street(13 buses). Option E. Hybrid mechanical and self-park parking structure at the southeast corner of Toro and Santa Rosa(780 cars) behind new retail space on Monterey Street with access from Monterey and Toro Street. Transit component developed along Higuera Street(8 buses). Option F. Self-park parking structure occupying the northern two thirds of the Monterey, Toro, Higuera, Santa Rosa Street block (849 cars). Transit component on Santa Rosa Street (13 buses) occupying the southern one third of the block. Option G. Mechanical parking structure at the southeast corner of Monterey and Toro Streets with a "drive-thru" system of transfer compartments (800 cars) accessed by Toro Street. Transit component behind new retail space fronting Santa Rosa Street(12 buses). Option H. Mechanical parking structure (780 cars) at the northeast comer of Higuera and Santa Rosa behind new public plaza and retail space fronting Higuera Street. Mechanical parking is a same side ingress/egress system. Mechanical parking is configured as a one way in and one way out system. Transit component developed along Higuera Street(14 buses). Property Owner Involvement The City does not currently own any property within the two-block project area. Property owners and occupants within this area have been notified of this meeting, however they have not been involved or consulted in the preparation of the design options. To date,two property owners (Shell and Morgan Stanley) have strongly stated that they are not interested in selling their property. Next Steps Because this is a study session to introduce the Planning Commission to the project and the concept of mechanical parking, a second advertised public meeting will be held (after the trip to Hoboken) to receive the Commission's recommendation to the City Council on a preferred option. The City Council will review the Planning Commission's recommendation and vote on a S��I Planning Commission Stu"Session-NARF and Mechanical Park's Attachment 4- Page 4 preferred option with which to proceed. The preferred option(s) will be refined by the consultant and presented to the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC), Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and Planning Commission with final action on a schematic design taken by the City Council. Environmental Review The City's contract with the consultant includes the preparation of an environmental assessment of the preferred option. Potential environmental impacts include the identification and remediation of hazardous waste materials, socioeconomic impacts related to any relocation of businesses, traffic and cultural resources impacts. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Map of the Study Area Attachment 2: Parking Brochure Sample The staff will present drawings of design options at the study session. KATransportation Projects\Transit\Current Projects\NARF Parking StructureTesign\Planning Comission Report#I.doc S� � Attachment J 2 u i T. 1 . o . o LU Q m a z J s a W = a --------- 1. -- � I u _, r Eve, S OIO,I 1 I i w//// f o-.os1 j `MtL� •K919� Wtt Yi •�•rt ti Co-.9q C9 i J `GOY ' \,\\\\� ©��.��\\\' -•�t9t I `�I a � x tt' 9a - f' o 48845 esON e3OS x a ----- - - _� _. -•___---__ 1----------------- i ------------- ---- �- 33 FuR"uftnatk4� P F & for 2-20 parjany e Multiparker provides space-saving and Multiparker Model Tee parking options by stacking cars side by side and on top of one another in 700a Senoes fully-automated high-rack shelving system. One or more entrance areas provide access into the system. The storage and retrieval unit is equipped with an integrated quick-change pallet system and a turntable that turns the oil vehicle during transport and brings it into a Ipr the exit position. The entrance area(s) can I� be arranged at any level. The storage and _ -- - retrieval technique allows faster access times wI which makes the Multiparker an attractive alternative to conventional parking facilities. - The Multiparker dispenses with the need for ramps, aisles, stairwells, elevators, lighting, HVAC, etc. and offers security against theft and vandalism. When compared to conventional garage buildings, it is envi- ronmentally friendly in terns of its compact construction, and helps reduce emissions. SpaceSaver Multiparker Systems can be configured far above and below grade parking, depending on your requirements. SpaceSaver Parking 1 �'a• Company" `a ^20 N. Wolcott Avenue Three photographs-of the Multiparker .,Iicago, IL 60622 in use at the Summit Grand Parr 773/486-6900 • Fax 773/486-2438 in Washington, DC, the nation's first sales@spacesaverparking.com fully-automated parking garage www.spacesaverparldng.com Parking 1 Parking �7 Attachment 4 Multiparker 700 Series O Automated parking systems for 2-20 parking levels, configured above or below grade O Entry/exit locations at any level O Designed to accommodate vehicles of various heights t 1 O Multi-row arrangement .- O Quick-change pallet system=short access.times entry/exit O Integrated turntable O Can be free standing or attached to a facility Parking Dimension A Dimension A level foe 5.09 ft. with 2 parking levels Z9, gh cars for 6.56 ft.high carsi 4 25.26' 28.22' r, 5 31.17' 34.12' - 6 37.07' 40.03' 7 42.98' 45.93' ° 8 48.88' 51.84' m 9 54.79' 57.74' m 10 60.7' 63.65' a 11 66.6' 69.55' 12 72.51' 75.46' m 13 78.41' 81.36' i 14 84.32' 87.27' m ° ° 15 90.22' 93.18' m -- 16 96.13' 99.08' 17 102.03' 104.99' m i 18 107.94' 110.89' 19 ._ :- .,.113.85' ....:..116.8'..... 20 118.11' 122.T 18.04' 19.69'04 18.04' 1.64' Dimension ' (18. ') 55.7TDimension-C: 7.38 ft.for 6.56 ft.high cars (54.131 Parking bays Grid width 8.04 it. Dimensions in bradmts for storage and retrieval unit(SRU)without turntable. per level* Length D 6 29.104' 8 37.OT. 10 45.11' mail l2 53.15 o ® ( *The number of parking spaces depends on number and i artangement of transfer areas S C6 S ao SpaceSaver i Parking OlComplanyc 820 N. Wolcott Avenue, Chicago, IL 60622 773/486-6900 9Fax 773/486-2438 Space of at least 6.56'x 9.84'x 7.8T(W x L x H)must sales@s acesave arkin .corn be available near the transfer area for the control unit p g www.spacesaverparking.com S- 3S ,) Attachment 5 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING_COMMISSION MINUTES May 14, 2003 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Carlyn Christianson, Michael Boswell, Alice Loh, Vice-Chair James Caruso and Chairperson Orval Osborne. Absent: None Staff: Assistant Planner Hilary . Hodges, Transportation Associate Peggy Mandeville, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, Neighborhood Services Manager Rob Bryn, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda forecast was asked to be given after Item 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Gary Fowler, 777 Mill Street, strongly opposed the closure and modification of Broad Street because of the negative impact it will have on businesses in that area, as well as the downtown. He also opposed the proposed parking structure and transit center to be located downtown across from the new County Government center. Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, agreed with Mr. Fowler's comments and position. Bob Schrage, 1167 Marsh Street, spoke on the potential one-block closing of Monterey Street at Santa Rosa Street and noted he has approximately 36 signatures opposing the street closure. There were no other comments from the public. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. 1001 Higuera Street. A 8-03; Appeal of the Zoning Hearing Officer's denial on a request to add a nightclub use to an existing restaurant (Firestone Grill); C-C zone; David Billingsley, applicantlappellant. (Continued from April 9, 2003, where public comment was received) (Hilary Hodges) Attachment 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 2 Hilary Hodges presented the staff report, recommending the Commission uphold the appeal and approve the use permit, based on findings and subject to conditions, which she outlined. Commr. Aiken questioned whether both the applicant and property owner were in agreement with the conditions of approval. Commr. Loh expressed concern with the State requirements involved with revocation of such a use permit. Gil Trujillo interjected that an issue he was asked to look into at the last hearing by the applicant was whether or not an automatic termination date could be applied to the use permit. He explained the law is clear that an automatic termination is not allowed. He clarified that the condition, as proposed, is the strongest the City could have, and before revocation could occur, the applicant would be allowed full due process rights, which is to notice, in a hearing, the reasons why the permit should be revoked. Rob Bryn, Neighborhood Services Manager, explained that when an establishment is ABC-licensed and under use permit control, there are two ways to handle the situation: 1) go after the liquor license administratively or criminally by means of disorderly house prosecutions, or 2) go after the use permit or both. He noted the Police Department stands with the original recommendation, which is to deny any additional nightclub use permits in the downtown core, based on person/power problems, which was also impacted by recent budget cuts that resulted in the loss of two officers. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jeff Wozniak, applicant's representative and appellant, had no problems with the staff recommended conditions of approval and asked that the Commission approve the request. He explained there will be adequate staff available to handle any problems that may arise, hopefully at the on-set of any problems. Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed her concern with drunk drivers and felt there are already enough bars in this town. She asked that the Commission deny the request. Gary Fowler, 777 Mill Street, felt a one-year review period was good since it would give a clear picture of business during various holidays, school breaks, vacations, etc. He asked that the Firestone staff ensure that trash is cleaned up when their patrons leave, which is a common problem at the other bars. He suggested Firestone staff could make arrangements to get intoxicated patrons home safely since there have been cutbacks with the Poly-Trolley. COMMISSION COMMENTS On motion by Commr. _Boswell to adopt the resolution upholding the appeal and approving the Conditional Use Permit, based on findings and subject to conditions noted in the staff report, with the addition of Finding 6. The proiect will not result in a Planning Commission Minutes - Attachment 5 May 14, 2003 Page 3 substantial increase on incidents requiring Police response. Seconded by Commr. Caruso. Commr. Boswell had equity issues with a "first come, first served" principle, since problems currently exist. He felt the approval should be granted to those who demonstrate appropriate management of such a use, and if problems arise, examine the problem itself, such as the business itself. Commr. Caruso felt this might be the appropriate time to require the business to be accountable for some of the problem issues at other locations, such as policing the areas after the closing of business hours and picking up trash and bottles. Commr. Cooper felt that any additional burden on the Police Department will be substantial, and felt approval of this use permit is the postponement of a problem yet to be solved. Commr. Loh expressed concerns with drinking and driving issues by students, as well as the impact on the Police Department. Commr. Aiken noted the impact on existing resources and budget restraints, and felt the use could be reconsidered when resources are available to properly police the facilities. Commr. Christianson felt the Commission should proactively find a model for responsible businesses and the growth of these responsible businesses. Commr. Osborne felt this use would be redistribution, and not an expansion on the burden of the Police Department. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Christianson and Osborne NOES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper and Loh ABSENT: None REFRAIN: None The motion carnes on a 4:3 vote. 2. Two-block area bordered by Monterey, Toro, Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets Study Session to introduce the Commission to the North Area Regional Facility (NARF) parking and transit project, and the concept of mechanical parking; C-C and C-C-H zones, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Peggy Mandeville) Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report and asked the Commission to review and discuss the design options and concept of mechanical parking. She clarified that no formal action can be taken at a study session, but staff will return at a future public hearing to request the Commission's recommendation on a preferred design option. Ms. Mandeville clarified. that the City does not own the property, and the property owners currently have not expressed an interest in selling the property. She noted a delegation,will be going to Hoboken, New Jersey to observe the parking facility there, Attachment 5 Planning Commission Minute. May 14, 2003 Page 4 and a public hearing will be conducted after that trip requesting selection of one of the options. Commr. Loh asked why an alternative site has not been selected. She asked for clarification of"North Area" and asked if it applies to north county or north city. She also asked why the City is going to the expense to review a project on property that landowners do not want to sell. Transportation Associate Mandeville clarified the north area as being the north area of downtown San Luis Obispo. However, the transit facility will be a consolidated facility where all the transfers will occur for City and County buses. She further clarified earlier studies were done by Wilbur-Smith who evaluated the best location fora parking facility, and determined that the Shell station site was the best location. Direction from the Council was given to also consider Higuera Street. She reiterated that this project is still a study, and the entire two-block area being considered is not needed for a parking and transit facility; only portion of a block is needed. Commr. Christianson noted concerns with earthquake retrofitting of the historic Stover Sanitarium building (Old French Hospital). She felt that planning an entire design around a building that may become obsolete in 2017 if no one wants to pay for retrofitting should be an area of concern. Sam Nunes, of Gordon H. Chong and Partners, introduced Pauline Souza of his firm; Dave Koskie and Don Momahan with Walker Parking Consultants. He noted that all of the above have been working with City staff in the preparation of preliminary ideas and configurations for the NARF. The primary programmatic components are an 800-car garage and a 14 bus bay transit center. Other components are retail, office, public restrooms, and other compatible facilities. The study location is two city blocks bounded by Santa Rosa, Monterey, Toro and Marsh Streets. It was noted that they are also considering the potential for residential uses with these projects. A PowerPoint presentation was given by Mr. Nunes, identifying the key issues of the project. Two primary solutions to parking were identified: 1) self park or 2) mechanical. Don Mornahan explained that an automated Mechanical Parking Structure utilizes computer- controlled, motorized vertical lifts and horizontal shuttles to transport vehicles from the arrival level or street level to a remote compartment for storage, without human assistance. There are over 500 mechanical structures worldwide, most under 200-car capacity. He explained that the patron drives into a transfer compartment the size of a single-car garage, turns.off the motor, sets the brake, and exits the vehicle. There are sensors in the compartment that monitor if there are humans or pets left inside the vehicle before the system is allowed to activate. A magnetic card (ticket) is used (swiped) to activate the storage process, closing the doors and moving the vehicle to the storage location. Sensors also measure the size of the vehicle to ensure it is the appropriate size to fit within the system. To retrieve the vehicle, one "swipes" the magnetic ticket and the computer activates the retrieval process by automatically delivering the vehicle to the S'- 59 Attachment 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2003 Page 5 exit compartment. Electronic signs identify where the vehicle is being delivered since there are multiple compartments. The user then goes to that compartment, accesses their vehicle, and drives out of the exit compartment. The advantages of automated parking are 1) no mechanical ventilation requirements because the vehicle is not operated while it is being stored; 2) additional room for door- opening clearance is eliminated creating efficiency; 3) lower ceiling height can be utilized because vehicle clearance is all that is required; 4) tandem parking can be used to the fullest which increases the capacity and efficiency of the system (twice the number of spaces as a ramp-access garage); 5) cost savings due to elimination of occupants (no stairs or elevators) and safety and security since no one is allowed in the storage vault or building shell; no lighting necessary other than task lighting for routine maintenance; 6) enhanced convenience compared to a self-park garage (automated valet parking operation). The disadvantages are 1) the perception of poor reliability. In the past, hydraulic elevator systems did not perform very well, broke down frequently, had a number of maintenance.issues, and patrons could not retrieve vehicles when the lifts were broken. Now, the technology is computer-driven electronics and not hydraulics. There are redundant motors and computers as well as back-up power and a number of features designed to improve the reliability that gives virtually 99.9% reliability. 2) Specialized maintenance of motorized equipment, although sensors on the motors identify when a motor is beginning to fail and the maintenance can be performed prior to failure. 3) The cost of the systems inside the garage presents a cost premium of about 1.5 to 2 times that of a self-park garage. 4) Access into these automated facilities can be rather slow. (30 to 50 in one hour per compartment vs. 400 per hour in one lane in a self-park garage). The consultant then introduced the eight different site design options. Option A. 840 spaces. Transit center utilizes Higuera right-of-way, with 14 bus stalls within the transit center. Bus movement is down Toro or Higuera westward or down Santa. Rosa eastward. Vehicle movement inbound is from Santa Rosa into the garage, and out through the lobby and onto Santa Rosa. Retrieval of the vehicle is to the lobby, with outbound to Higuera. Advantages: Most of the site is preserved; the Monterey Street retail corridor expansion can take place; substantial development parcels remain and supports office over retail; dedicated internal street for vehicle queuing; parking and transit are segregated which eliminates vehicle and bus conflicts. Disadvantages: Requires negotiation of three parcels on site A and four parcels on site B; requires relocation of Bank of America; potential vehicle congestion at Higuera and Santa Rosa intersection; structure is 50-feet tall; all street parking on both sides of Higuera and on the west side of Toro is eliminated. Option B. Mechanical garage located mid-block. The transportation center remains the same as in Option A. Delivers 807 cars, and is the most compact urban form with a �(�� S- ` D Planning Commission Minute - Attachment 5 May 14, 2003 Page 6 net gain parking of 670 because it is situated where there is currently surface parking. It is 48-feet tall. Advantages: Most compact urban form; the majority of Site A is preserved for the Monterey retail expansion; the Bank of America is preserved; provides a 14 bus bay capacity and required dedicated internal street for vehicle queuing; inbound access from Higuera and outbound from portals onto Marsh; parking and transit vehicle modes are segregated; minimal visual exposure of parking structure which internalizes the structure within the site. Disadvantages: Requires negotiation of three parcels on Site A and two parcels on Site B; congested vehicular conditions on Higuera and Santa Rosa intersection; no retail amenity; exit from parking limited to Marsh Street; eliminates all street parking on Higuera and some on Toro. Option C. Self-park garage on Site B. Delivers 782 cars in a self-park condition. There is 7,750 square feet of retail along Higuera and a small transit office. It has a 3- bay scheme, with the transit remaining the same. The height is 46-feet. Advantages: Majority of Site A is preserved for Monterey Street expansion; provides 14 bus bays; development of parcel remaining along Marsh limited to 60-foot depth with a zero lot condition against the garage. Disadvantages: Requires the negotiations of three parcels on Site A and five parcels on Site B; eliminates all street parking on Higuera and some on Toro; a very massive structure at 1834eet across by 301-feet wide by 46-feet tall. Option D. Places all development on Site A and within the Higuera Street right-of-way. It is a self-park structure delivering 798 stalls. The transit center does not currently reach Santa Rosa but a small urban plaza is introduced between the transit center and Santa Rosa, which shortens the transit center platform. A total of 9 buses align the platform and four buses are adjacent to the garage, with one shuttle bay adjacent to the plaza. 762 net gain. A single-threaded, two-bay parking scheme that rises to a height of 46.5 feet. Advantages: Substantial retail development at Santa Rosa and Monterey; the entirety of the garage is wrapped in retail for the first two levels of the garage; building on Santa Rosa and Monterey strengthens the urban edge; the building reaches to the intersection of Santa Rosa and Monterey, bringing built form to the intersection and defining that comer; primary pedestrian flows from the garage to the downtown are also within that corner where the stairs and elevators are located, which facilitates pedestrian movement to and from the structure; landscape opportunity at Santa Rosa and Higuera; parking and transit circulation routes are largely segregated and movements into the garage are off Monterey and exit movements from Toro, with the buses behind the garage. Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 5 May 14, 2003 Page 7 Disadvantages: This option utilizes all of Site A requiring negotiation of all seven parcels; no direct bus access to transit from Santa Rosa — all bus movement is from Toro or Higuera; transit patrons must cross a two-way internal driveway. Option E. This is a hybrid scheme that combines the mechanical garage and the self- park garage. This option places three levels of mechanical parking underground. It is expected that Site A will need toxic clean-up which requires excavation and off-hauling of material. An engineered fill can be compacted and rebuilt up to grade, placing the building on that, or utilize the volume that was created with mechanical parking, which would be the mechanical solution, entered off of Monterey. The self-park rises above that and is accessed from Toro. A volume at grade between the self-park and the mechanical scheme is to be utilized with retail space along Monterey down to Toro (approximately 12,500 sq. ft. of retail). The garage reaches the back of the Shell station property but leaves the property intact. There are eight bus bays on the transit center, which could be extended. This building is 36.5 feet above grade. Advantages: The combination of the two systems provides great flexibility and accommodates different use profiles; the mechanical system is appropriate for employee (long term) parking; the self-park is the solution for the short-term transient users or retail users that would park for 1-2 hours, all of which is above grade and makes the sense of security and safety high; the parking and transit circulation routes are largely separated; none of Site B is utilized; preserves a major parcel on Site A currently known as the Shell station site. Disadvantages: The Shell station site currently serves as a separation between the parking and transit center and the balance of the downtown; no direct bus routes off of Santa Rosa; only eight bus bays with expansion possible to 14; slightly more expensive with below-grade construction; elimination of street parking on Toro and Higuera. Option F. A self-park garage that is located on Site A; 848-car self-park, three-bay scheme; delivers 13 bus bays, nine within the Shell station site and four along Higuera; is 45-feet high. Advantages: Parking structure and transit center are in a prominent location with high visibility; the transit location allows for bus circulation along Santa Rosa; retail development along Monterey; retail bar along the garage to help mitigate its height but also to provide a program that allows for the continuation of the pedestrian experience along Monterey; the combined parking and transit on one block share resources(office, public restroom facilities, flower shop, newspaper stand, etc.); does not utilize any of Site B. Disadvantages: Utilizes all of Site A; requires negotiation of all seven parcels; potential traffic congestion due to stacking on Monterey; high potential for pedestrian/bus conflict due to pedestrian movements. Option G. Mechanical garage; configuration attempts to solve some problems associated with Option F; 800 cars; 10,800 sq. ft. of retail along Monterey; 12 bus bays (nine in a saw-tooth and three in tandem); 42-feet high. Planning Commission Minute, / Attachment 5 May 14, 2003 Page 8 Advantages: The transit center has been moved within the block and a small retail building and plaza placed long the Santa Rosa Street right-of-way which protects the transit center and its movement from the on-street traffic and defines the edge along Santa Rosa; improves pedestrian movements because the perception of vehicle movement through the space will be quieted down somewhat; transit station remains visible; plaza opens the transit center to the intersection of Monterey and Santa Rosa, but the building protects the station; does not utilize any of Site B. Disadvantages: Utilizes all of Site A; requires negotiation of all parcels; increases congestion mid-block on Monterey requiring a traffic signal; high potential for pedestrian/bus conflict; elimination of parking. Option H. Mechanical scheme; utilizes all of Site B; rotates the mechanical garage and creates a single-sided-mechanical garage; lines up all the garages on one side; garage changes from an inbound to an out-bound condition; entry is from Santa Rosa and exit is onto Higuera; the lobby is at the intersection of Santa Rosa and Higuera and helps establish the comer; an urban plaza is located adjacent to the lobby and opposite the garage, between the garage and transit center; the transit center is set up like Options A and B with 14 bus bays and similar movements; 785 cars; 48-feet high. Advantages: The majority of Site A is preserved for the Monterey Street retail corridor expansion; development parcel remains along Marsh behind the garage; provides a 14 bus bay capacity; dedicated internal street for vehicle.queuing; parking and transit are segregated; vehicular modes are segregated; building on Santa Rosa and Higuera strengthens urban edge; large park area along Higuera. Disadvantages: Some conflict between pedestrian and automobile at transfer compartments when inbound and out-bound are on the same side of the garage; requires negotiation of three parcels on Site A and five parcels on Site B; requires relocation of Bank of America; eliminates some street parking on Higuera and Toro; congested vehicle condition on Higuera and Santa Rosa; a portion of parking structure is below grade, which makes it more expensive to construct. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION: Commr. Cooper felt that since employees arrive at the same time, it could cause congestion at the mechanical parking. He asked for clarification that the space cost is $12,000 to $20,000, and had concerns with the bulk issue of the structures. He noted his puzzlement that a public plaza was incorporated into two schemes. The response was that the ability of the system to store and retrieve vehicles (service rate) is highly dependent on "dwell time" which is the time it takes the patron, after they drive into the entry compartment, to actually clear the entry compartment, which changes drastically between the familiar user and unfamiliar user. The consultant reiterated that the mechanical structures are inherently smaller structures by about two- thirds. It was noted that public plazas were incorporated into projects that did not seem to have the potential for other development S- �3 Planning Commission Minutes- J Attachment 5 May 14, 2003 Page 9 Commr. Caruso asked why there are only two of these garages in the United States. It was noted that mechanical garages are well suited to small sites that cannot be developed into a self-park garage. Other countries seem to be more accepting of new technology such as ATM's and Pay-on-foot stations, which originated in Europe; it took some time for the U.S. population to become accustomed to their use. The two in the U.S. were built within the last two years. PUBLIC COMMENT Marybeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt this structure is a premature dream and a mistake, and the City of San Luis Obispo is not ready for mechanical garages. Bob Schrage, 1167 Marsh Street, felt the scale, scope, cost, environmental impact, and traffic impact are issues to be considered. He appreciated the various scenarios and felt there may be other locations that should be considered. He expressed concern at the proximity of the project to his home and urged the Commission to evaluate all situations. Eugene Judd (inaudible) asked where the 800 parking spaces are coming from. He felt the community is already over-parked, and questioned where the buses will run in the future. He felt the pedestrian connection between the new center and the downtown has not been addressed since several thousand pedestrians must cross Santa Rosa Street which accommodates 20,000 vehicles per day. He suggested closing Santa Rosa Street from Monterey to Higuera or possibly Marsh. He felt this would work if the through traffic of the downtown was removed. He suggested organizing a ring-road around the downtown (Palm, Nipomo, Monterey, Toro south or Johnson, turn the one- way system of Marsh the other direction, go along Pacific which would be one-way west, access the parking garage from the south, 'change Pismo Street one-way the opposite direction going east). He felt. if the landowners do not want to sell their property, a combination bus terminal and parking garage of no more than 300 spaces could be considered. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Cooper felt there should be more direction to Council, and that all the criteria be weighted equally. He also felt pedestrian-friendly, and appropriate scale and bulk are weighted criteria that must be factored in to the evaluation of all of the schemes. He felt that critical mass of retail development along the street frontage in all the schemes has not been addressed, noting continuous retail frontage is necessary in order to maintain the vitality of the city's pedestrian-oriented retail. Hefelt a more clear description of the "left over" spaces is necessary, although public plaza or pedestrian space would be his preference. He felt clear definition of who will be using the garage is essential, and clear definition of pedestrian conflict areas (although they are clear in schemes F, G and H) is significant. Cost benefit assessment of the two schemes needs to contain more detail to understand what we are getting for the dollar. Ste' y4 Attachment 5 Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2003 Page 10 Commr. Caruso felt the taking of private property should be minimized, and the use of public right-of-way should be maximized, especially towards the underutilized areas of the private property in the area. He felt the continuous retail component should be emphasized, and questioned if this is the optimal location for this project. He expressed his conclusion that mechanical parking would not work in SLO unless a hybrid scheme was used. He expressed that he would not support any option that does not have a substantial residential element. He noted his concern with the intersections at Santa Rosa such as Marsh, Higuera, Monterey and Palm, feeling they currently are deadly intersections. Commr. Loh questioned the location of the transfer center. She noted that Santa Rosa Street is a Caltrans road, not a City street, which affects other traffic patterns. She recommended a comprehensive traffic pattern study on Santa Rosa Street be done. Commr. Boswell felt long-term thought should be given as to how many parking garages are needed in the future, and where they should be located rather than considering them incrementally, as is current practice. He felt a comprehensive study of transportation in downtown, including pedestrian and bicycles is needed, as well as parking needs. He noted his observation as a frequent bus rider that a significant portion of ridership are patrons who have some type of mobility limitation, and questioned how the traffic situation such as crossing Santa Rosa Street would affect that significant customer base. He suggested adding Criterion on public safety to the existing list, with regard to transportation conflicts and the transit area. Commr. Aiken supported resolution of pedestrian conflicts and car and bus congestion especially on Higuera Street near bus parking. He supported maximization of retail and office space whenever possible, as well as integration of residential. He was not sure that a mechanized system is the way to go, but is certainly worth investigating. He supported further study to determine the need for another parking structure. Commr. Christianson strongly supported the idea of a mechanical structure, provided the need for another structure is determined. Commr. Osborne questioned County participation, and concurred with comments by other Commissioners. Associate Mandeville clarified there are two projects-being considered; the transit facility and the parking structure, noting the County is paying the consultant for '/2 of the parking structure analysis and design work being done, and the City will discuss with them whether or not they want to proceed. It has been determined in past studies that there is a need for 300 parking spaces for County employees, which is why they are participating in the study. Ms. Mandeville suggested compiling a list of questions that the Commission may want directed to users, designers, or builders of the Hoboken project. Staff, Commission members and Council members will be visiting Hoboken the end of June and hope to come before the Commission again in July, and on to the Council in August or September. Planning Commission Minutes — i Attachment 5 May 14, 2003 Page 11 Agenda Forecast: May 28th: Cal Poly Presentation on Student Housing proposal; Conservation Element discussion; Public Works presentation on Stormwater Management Plan. May 31St: Celebration of Community Housing event. Hilary Hodges asked for a show of hands for those who would be attending. Peggy Mandeville noted that a Transportation Concept Report is being prepared by Caltrans for Highway 1. They are seeking input from the City, and will be scheduling a special joint meeting with the Bicycle Advisory Committee and Mass Transportation Committee. She asked if July 2, 2003, would be an acceptable date and received a positive response. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 28, 2003., Respectfully Submitted, Diane Stuart Supervising Administrative Assistant Attachment 5 DRAFT- EXCERPT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 912003 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 9, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, James Caruso, Alice Loh, Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Orval Osborne. Absent: Commissioner Allan Cooper. Staff: Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore, Transportation Associate Peggy Mandeville, Deputy Public Works Directors Tim Bochum and Rob Livick, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, City Attorney Jonathon Lowell, Community Development Director John Mandeville and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of February 26, and March 26, were accepted as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed her feeling that there are too many managers and department heads deciding and making decisions without careful thinking and merit, and without the proper public comment. There were no further comments made from the public. 2. Two-block area bordered by Monterey, Toro, Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets Review of the North Area Regional Facility (NARF) parking and transit site design options; C-C and C-C-H zones; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Transportation Associate Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council proceed with Site Plan Option B, D, or E as the preferred option for-further study. She noted that on May 14tH the Commission was given a presentation on eight different design options for the North Area Regional Facility, and an introduction on mechanical parking. She noted that a , , ' Lf Jlt --- -------- ------------.------------�� { Santa Rosa Street On i1 ; IN C=[n Y 4u4 N �I e,.. C 1. ✓. ^ 1 Yr Y.W ••t �YyI y T-(E Toro Street —T- •r, co ! - - r1 ��-�--- -------- - - ---it --- r', 1 r. s •9 H p S n A m p m p ru S o r > a z r 1 K 1 --�-- _ --- } ' 3 G n F 2' ° ^ 7 O O H 1 vtm n � - n �P � m9. a u�. � t•� �.52m �. 0 — —�4�_- - -- _ z _ -sa►rta Rosa . _-- z 72•.e (20'(20-15 z ao') a •r o I ; - oo O. L � I . O _ (111'.2') � v i i 2080. I I O ic0 1c 29 i L O 7 L d N L O - w'W� ♦i jij 'e I o f 4 p e I I y M - m Io " N O ti ? 1 —__-_—_— Y Y G �" O l y` • J am c1 s o r 6.tOm 6.10m 6.10. 6lom B.tOm 610. T — 1 120'1 (20.1 (20' 1201 c C co cu000c - ------ -0'L'e _ _ - W - p T � L o P y Z � 70 d6m 110 '�0') ' t9m � a2 68m I ta0' a2 1 -0'1� rrr; 1 0.1 0 SZ S'tL S'LL I c L 10 I61:Ix 1:IClp 3 p °,I�I•i°lal W e m 0------------ Iu D I? u ._._._._._ — 9 OL 6 m G) p-ot -'------'- O 2 D (3 D I Z 4D48.(100' ) r # —r N K I I _ _ r S .�'_ ? 'u.,0 0 •'41st '<G I� r'idi,' i :—BANTA ROSA - I ..I ; a, 1.6 m 1 .0 �3k ( 1 ' I _ __________________ I a Vao — _ o _ _!n —. eO.Otm(262'-6') � I IAII • m T r i TORO 44wr'It, a — -4 1 A - C. � •� 1 J r ^ � , ^ r' �O CA ik ZI I I I I I I M W KNIM A U Io 0 o illiklill 111111INNI1111\1111111 _ 3 - 7 I - I 80.01m(262'-6') v a y N r dc II - 2 y J I I III c ^ I III I Ili ; ' o- Z r I IIII 3 I Q o alz C __._,_,_ i i ,� III 3 W 80,01m 1262'8-) - I I I II III QI Iliill � s -. i lilill -______ 111111 T - U-�� m i'i,ly iq iq l;I 53 C IA s 9'69 's r Im n (3Z ` r N N __ _ 1------------ I f n r v o O N v rJ —SANTA ROSA- t t t � o0 I N - _ — b o x i o C — r ys III VIII il ' s w t8.22m 55.71m(153'-0') _ V J 117 TORO $ ,� cn C/1 p .N� •(' r y 1• y 7- H r n n m c c o c j Y n a ,a v '• 9 ..— --.-.-...- 1111 III A III III I . I I I — I i o n •� m 1 $g _ m .gym ❑ Ef — —_ — = I tC ^ v .. A y II ' 111111' III II ' VIII ' III o i . . 'Z v ii 5571m(183'0') 55]im(1B3'0') m r n � SII 3 n w Z .......... ii = ra t 2 S ■ � C p C r IIS\ ."O = pf m 3 _._._.___ Im p > 0'lt Y46N 13 10 p A IH m h c� o 07 16, I: Im s sss r T p fig D A Z r ti K I •� _ > - A..!� ASI f t O r N � - 'f �'• r r, fl O 4ANTA ROA - -� Z. _ .� � ..r`08.49m 7126'.79 3 88 9.14 i 3 .o. (12')' (38' m m16.46. - `c J c 1! i _ .>•�, a ova o .81 �• n ti I .; p - 3 � �. ,l,r s m .' 726'1 t r • o `r � _ _ r w,\• __1=..-?pR0- � r Iii �7 9 f rm . � I c c _ L 9iL p 3 ii B'tL a a — '� v rr BOL J 96 , c _I r j • c CO) s : , n ❑ — 0`69 .............. ¢ n �z — �c — — — i s I� i I iy � 38.49m 1126'3 JB d9m It26_�J'�._ _.___. I N .� v ❑ 0'69 ._ - 17 m = a C a 3 g '---- -- 96 o iq 0.0G' m a p 2 0 LL D __._._._._._ • a A_ Z S'ZL r I � I j i I Ce ? m0 En- ^ r � `SANTA ROSA\ m 'mdf O El a 3me � l ,r 3.68. 8.14 Itfh 1 ♦ �I (11')j f30' 4 J Ic c — t'. T ° = _ e� ; o` / ^^•sere 'I t O ^n '? J op.' 1 on 38.49m(128'.3') :1 �® TORO - - cn c -4 4ei.1m'' r 1 J IRK r2 IAL v m -I r^ - r nr N 3 O ---------- J. ^ 7, y . � 2 ,. N m S"9L — J� — �► I y R n r — ' _ cq L =•` 9 89 ._._._._ter±'� -i�'n I r • Z - - _._.__u� i S /w C 069 i i � i i ii I. 38.49m 1128'-3'I * 30 40m 1100-0' I CO) ryjZ ` S'99 �it i I t: m NI I I I I LL1 rJ�U 'I 11 I I II I El I'S re � p 1IlIICZ O G. J I::. Ij f rt 1V ■■ .� a_ Iql a le. I. 13 -+ _ cca der I� ° s s 0 S �' i9 A d 'o u m r 3 Oa rh --- ------. - . Im s6 e EMIRo m I a« i r SiL T 0'ZL n Z SZL. r H I �iyil',_ —'— 1---------- 1 f "�`'• c -t 'v ~ -- — -- ----- __ •. o....----- 'SANTAROSH--�g4m -;o ---- CD .02 I m. y yIL 0 6 I _ _ - _W� �.._ Po � Sq Na ► o � I L�� • 0---- ------------ 0 �RQL IN P, V I A -+ •4' Qr I� c - u ////✓//!Y� 1772 t 146') i - 7t_ I / IV •a = � -y��'�..r� .::-�, C �. ;:.,^.�• _ _ .43m 1166'.84) � .87m' i�■ � " en = U: 3 = — = IIII IIID 9 IL 9 IL a t r 3 2 _ _ � o — A 0 L I u - s „ I ' II' IIIIII' I ! 1 CO) • S 69 I p iiil � ZI I 1 1 m 0 69 I I i n DIlls R ------ iii .1 SC) 9'89 i i i ii u z II y •� � C• J_LJl I:I: V 2 - Ef rail to .�• O � 9 IM 0'69 M T _ __ o I c > S'69 ° I O S'OL 2 � r nT � 0 ZL Z S LL I r I 1 I T� G m o I " - r ' .. �.'. •.,^ �. •v � NTA ROSA-- _ 0� m c y p p i LE y� 2 f-„^', ' iE .LO '^.a .L I^a as •� `In,alp .. p0 u a Ina Ii0 i - o S' c __ O O It t � s - o_ J: m _ � H �i 94j'•,F �l tu` C�,q- •-- A�.1lnass:, - _- - r ^ f ~ N n i f � to �,� �ry _ Aj /',. i�'` , . •.TO r �'1 111 1 y '. rti u L r y 1 a.l l•4' Y '� i -5 r• 10 +1372 >• p 4 1 �;� 0 ? _ •� +f1•"r f-Vis;• �-- i '1 c I _Q I } J N_ r 48 .BB (24') U6'(46' l TAROCA (;2's•) � � � � 4114 ''dI,L'•' � I � I n v = Yr y _ 6 01 En 1 . � •�O r N e w !.1 b. �_� r � �• - s , N . � � � I I III I ,� I I I I �a I . . . . IN III3 y � 3 n ' S v w( IIIN I 7 - II III II I I I Milli m 11113 n I 1 WHIM m 1111 1 0 a Z " R _ IHIM 1 11 I MITI111 1 11 I I I I I I all •d ^ � — t -r�•�0� 1 1 1 1 1 ' 11111 iG t O 0'OL i 1 1 ' Y 66 44m(216'-0') * 6 4d (2161-0' CA W m r n II A bZ T& __._._.--- ; I ' 1 ; CD III I IIII / C) I I M en Z CIN - N - ■■ t — 111 IN _III_L1. 1J a i IIi3 1111 , I 2 c 5 If li if 40 O O v s r_r.r. l0 I I I 111 � •,p � '� � I•Ip lr iaA N A . ni 6.59 �- G a 9789 „ m 0°L 55DOm(160'-0') r s'iL - • na ------- Z Ii-ZL� � I r T G O rJ O C ,•Yt .F s �- <nr�, y (n s� CA n n m 7 L----------------- _ ___--_ 11y1_��8.'4MIi _ om �.rT�t4\ieln x , _..._. -(20gt 0') (201—..(24 '.(90'6 0 •/" •� 1 It _ t " 7 14 r"i..r-t I. _ -I .w,-��- I � .I( I( )r- — _ r- 1 �.•. .t}'C:L.3: i � ] t 1 1� 1 p O I Q�Sn I r l rL U ^ _. Cot O m ii O T m O N I I W A •� 0 O C ir.,t j Y 'c, C � G � = p S.i�y 7;�� `1 � .....�... '�. + ' .. W �� i � I o �a•< ;. �O I F5'�{ �.�'1� G 7 0 II ri r1Y I (94- -------------- - '� Y D 6 G o O >� �• t 5 I-t' ••+$ r iry r{.. S K y —I vim_` In 1 1 - • I I a2u4 I . = n � � , ,w +.. ...' - y y! _+•xl r�Vii• I CA A A 3 - •� .�tl�b�: •tM. 14 ? .� � �1 I . 1 ' -1 r �3 .�f �-�l` - Y L � ..I u}� ' i 1. X1.1 v�' �•1T c ? I - _ is . I i "•. '-'___II tl' ,.fr......I' z .c `•^ a C i; n c i o n < 4c �. O IT J r o = � N 0 0 0 0 0 N = ------ In V V C_ 3 3 I N O p G Z m _ g N m T. ca 7 D y I x r. v 1 62V 6.tOm Xf0 (6201'm6tOm10 0') P2012 A i I i 3048.(100'.0') \ \ \1 \1 24.38m fan.) ............... III i z o I_I C i I � I ,x „ nID _- 1i iil ■• - i t 2 � c O O Ir A Y 3 'I' 1p1m ;Ia _ rt 0 1'1.1.1.1.13 n ■ 13i91NI r i� O y 10 IM ;_ N m i e a i& V y 4 —._._. jo m ` G3 --------- 0 4• O D r . r i H UO/zoiu.s Jun 10:o3 rae auo 044 uaoz KaWPMnenx unaibry *JL uuz ?UtiS CF C - : S Wr "G� ' T Fso.•o�.t� Resolution No. 8165 (1993 RECEIVED RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE - OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 2 7 2003 ADOPTING A CONCEPTUAL PHYSICAL PLAN F R THE CITY'S CE RSLO CITY CLERK AS A LONG RANGE VISION FOR THE DOWNTOWN AND A GUIDE FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN WHEREAS,A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center, hereinafter referred to as the 'Downtown Plan% has been prepared and presented by the Council appointed Downtown Plan Committee; and WHEREAS, the design decisions incorporated within.the Downtown Plan are the product of ideas generated both by the Committee and by a representative panel of citizens who.interacted with the Committee during the 15 month plan development process; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Plan has subsequently been reviewed and evaluated by staff, the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Cultural Heritage Committee, the City Traffic Engineer, and the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received comments and recommendations,which O will be considered at each step of implementation, from those who have reviewed and evaluated the Downtown Plan; THEREFORE, the City Council resolves as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The Council hereby approves a Negative Declaration for the Downtown Plan, finding that the plan will not have a negative impact on the environment, and noting that individual public and private projects in the downtown shall be subject to CEQA requirements for environmental review at the time of proposal. SECTION 2 Plan Adoption. The Council hereby adopts A Conceptual Plan for the City's'Center, including approved modifications as recorded in the minutes of this meeting and attached as the "Summary of Recommended Modifications to the Downtown Plan." SECTION 3. Implementation, The City Council directs appropriate staff and commissions to incorporate relevant components of A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center into all City documents.affecting future downtown development, specifically: 1. Design concepts proposed in the Downtown Plan should be considered in he update of the Architectural Review Guidelines: . rc pUNICi CDD DIRJR CAO FIRE CHIEFRED FILE AnoRNEY �Pw DIR AAE I G AGENDA Ia�CLERIvoRIG 2 POUCE CHF ❑ D HEADS 1�REC DIJ 816 DATE,W ITEM g� l�UT1LDIR T�' (;SHR DIR uoizoiva tun ia:aa me oua 044 uoae Ke mm�n unaiuiv WI oua 2 Appropriate parts of the Downtown Plan should be incorporated into the update of . the Land Use,Housing,Circulation,Open Space,and Parks and Recreation elements of the General Plan. 3. The Zoning Ordinance should be updated consistent with downtown development policies as amended into the General Plan. 4. The Parking Management Plan and the Bicycle Facilities Plan should be updated to address key transportation concepts presented in the Downtown Plan. 5. The City projects and related property acquisitions specified in the Downtown Plan should be considered as part of the City's capital improvement program. 6. Individual public and private projects in the downtown will be subject to CEQA requirements for environmental review at the time of proposal. 7. To ensure the plan remains current, the Planning Commission will review the Downtown Plan every two years and submit a report to the City Council on the status of the plan, including any recommended text or graphics revisions to keep the plan current with changes in economics, transportation technology, retailing, community tastes, and any other variables which may affect the vision of the downtown over time. OOn motion of Council Member Ranoa , seconded by i Council Member Romero and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members kappa, Romero, Roalman, Settle, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 4th day of May 1993. Mayor T§g Pinard ATTEST: APPROVED: Clerk Diane R. �adweil City dministrative Officer O a�- �— - �._ Orn6.y FILE AIIE G AGEND DA TEM #� RECEIVED San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce AU6 2 '6 2003 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 SLO CITY CLERK (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 9 TDD (805) 541-8416 David E. Garth, President/CEO August 25, 2003 cow Dina. 0 ; 'COUNCIL C_ CDD DIR 'CAO 2 FIN DIR 12 ACAO J2 FIRE CHIEFMa or Dave Romero and Members of the City Council ATTORNEY ja PW DIR City of San Luis Obispo Ja CLERK/ORIG P•POLICE CHF 990 Palm Street ❑ DE HEADS_ Z REC DIR IR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �� 17 HRI DIIR Re.August 28 Meeting, Review of Design Options for the North Area Regional Facility Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members: The San Luis Obispo Chamber's Parking Task Force has made a careful study of design options "B," "D," and "E" for the North Area Regional Facility (NARF) Parking and Transit project. Members of the Chamber's Task Force include two of the five Downtown Concept Plan designers, representatives from SLO Regional Rideshare and Ride-on Transportation along with business owners. Based on their recommendation, our Board of Directors encourages you to direct staff to move ahead with proposal "D," a self-park structure for 798 cars on Monterey between Santa Rosa and Toro Streets with entries and exits on Monterey and Toro and transit developed along Fhguera. We feel that this is the best option for future planning purposes in terms of enhancing the urban fabric, providing for future expansion of business in the area and promoting the most efficient circulation pattern. While the City's Planning Commission did finally recommend "B," their comments showed considerable support for "D" as well. We concur with the observation of individual commissioners that "D" is the best choice in meeting urban design issues, traffic circulation implications, effective uses of the facility and safety. We also agree with the notion that mechanical parking as called for in plan 'B" is at this time a largely unproven technology in the U.S. and that it may not be in the best interests of our City to be the testing ground for its feasibility. In terms of property ownership issues, each of the choices has significant challenges. While it is true that "B" involves less relocation and fewer property owners, this area e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com I � mid-block between Santa Rosa and Toro with entry from Higuera and exit on Marsh also has the greatest potential and likelihood for development with prime commercial and mixed use application. Why not, at this early juncture, choose the plan that provides the best urban design, as noted by the consultant, and that also includes retail surrounding the use, that is, plan "D." Another point in favor of Plan "D" is the elevation changes on the site which would allow parking at a lower level and access from two levels on Monterey. The traffic flow on this option is much more logical as well. We commend the Council for moving ahead with a parking/transit facility at this location. The potential for City/County cooperation is important as is the benefit to this location for commuters, employees, tourists and shoppers. This project will act as an economic stimulus for the area as envisioned in the recently adopted commercial zoning ordinance. We would also like to take this opportunity to highlight and emphasize the value of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (the Downtown Concept Plan), adopted by Council Resolution in 1993. It provides a crucial guide for our city center. Its framework represents the work of ten review committee organizations as well as the input gathered over twelve public meetings. We believe that the Concept Plan is an invaluable blueprint that should be given full consideration and respect as staff, advisory bodies and the council continues its work in maintaining and creating a city in which we are proud to live and work. The North Area Regional Transit and Parking Facility fits well with the standards in the Downtown Concept Plan. Thank you for considering our recommendation of option Sincerely, 4;;e � rero Chairperson of the Board cc: Ken Hampian, CAO, City of San Luis Obispo Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Associate 1 1 1 1 San Luis Obispo Transit 1 Short Range Tansit Plan 1 DRAFT U R B 1 T R A N E P O R T 1 1 _ �— —- PPq G 1 1 1 1 uRBrrRAN Submitted to City of San Luis Obispo,CA 1 Submitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. 1 April 2003 1 i i ' Acknowledgments: ' Urbitran Associates would like to thank staff members from the following organizations for their assistance in providing materials and information for this report: City of San Luis Obispo City Council ' Dave Romero, Mayor Christine Mulholland,Vice Mayor I John Ewan Ken Schwartz Allen Settle City of San Luis Obispo Mass Transportation Committee Deby Anderson,Chair Jennifer Allen-Barker ' Bob Johnson Richard Lee Andrew Rubin _ ' Ann Wagner Jean Knox Kathryne Howard ' City of San Luis Obispo Administration Ken Hampian,City Administrative Officer City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department ' Michael McCluskey,Director of Public Works Tim Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works Austin O'Dell Transit Manager ' City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department John Mandeville,Director of Community Development Michael Draze,Deputy Director of Community Development ' California Polytechnic State University,San Luis Obispo First Transit,Inc. I 1 1 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Table of Contents ' Executive Summary...........................»..........».».».......................:...............................»............. ia ' CHAPTER ONE».......»..........».......»..»»....»..».»...»........»............................................»............1 OVERVIEW OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSIT SYSTEM.....................................................1 1.1 Service Area Demographics.......................................................................................l ' 1.1.1 Population and Population Density........................................................................l 1.1.2 Senior and Youth Populations....................................................:......:...................3 1.1.3 Income...................................................................................................................7 ' 1.1.4 Disabled Population. ... ..... ..7 1.2 Major Trip Generators ................................................................................................7 1.2.1 Employment Centers.............................................................................................7 1.2.2 Malls and Shopping Centers..................................................................................8 1.2.3 Hospitals&Major Clinics.....................................................................................8 1.2.4 Support Service and Adult Assistance Centers......................................................8 ' 1.2.5 Schools...................................................................................................................9 1.3 Summary of Potential Transit Need.........................................................................11 1.4 San Luis Obispo Transit Governance and Organizational Structure.......................12 ' 1.5 Contracting of Service Provision.............................................................................12 1.6 Performance Objectives and Service Standards......................:................................12 1.7 Transit Services Provided........................................................................................14 ' 1.8 Fare Structure...........................................................................................................18 1.9 Composition of Revenue Fleet.................... .....:......................................................18 ' 1.10 Maintenance of Vehicles.......................................................................................... 19 1.11 Demand Response Service.......................................................................................19 1.12 Passenger Amenities......................:.........................................................................20 ' 1.13 Other Transportation Providers................................................................................21 CHAPTERTWO..............»..»....».».».......................».....»...»..»»..»....».....».»».....»».....»..:.»..22 ' OPERATING AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE..............................................................22 2.1 Key Operating and Financial Statistics....................................................................22 2.1.1 Annual System Miles and Hours.........................................................................23 ' 2.1.2 System Expenses,Revenues,and Net Cost.........................................................23 2.1.3 Revenue Sources..................................................................................................24 2.2 System Trends..........................................................................................................26 I 2.2.1 Financial Trends..................................................................................................26 2.2.2 Operating Trends.................................................................................................28 ' CHAPTER THREE»..........».........».»»...........»..........:..».....................»..................»»..............31 ON-BOARD SURVEY RESULTS...........................................................................................31 3.1 Survey Methodology................................................................................................31 I3.l.1 Sampling Rates....................................................................................................31 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page ii I Citv of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' 3.1.2 Response Rates................................................ ..............32 ...................................... ' 3.2 Survey Results...............................................:..........................................................32 3.2.1 Affiliation with Cal Poly.....................................................................................32 3.2.2 Gender.................................................................................................................33 ' 3.2.3 Age.......................................................................................................................33 3.2.4 Income.................................................................................................................34 3.2.5 Car Availability...................................................................................................35 3.3 Transit Use Characteristics ...................................................... .............. ....36 3.3.1 Access Mode........................................................................................................36 3.3.2 Transfers..............................................................................................................37 3.3.3 Frequency of Use.................................................................................................38 3.3.4 Fare Media...........................................................................................................39 3.3.5 Trip Purpose........................................................................................................40 ' 3.3.6 Origin-Destination Information...........................................................................40 3.4 Passenger Satisfaction/Attitudes..............................................................................44 3.4.1 Service Ratings..............................................:..........:.......................................:..44 3.4.2 Desired Improvements.........................................................................................45 ' 3.5 Passenger Profiles by Ridership Segment................................................................46 ' CHAPTER FOUR..........».....»..».».......»._.................................................................................50 SERVICE STOP FACILITIES INVENTORY.........................................................................50 4.1 Policy Background...................................................................................................50 1 4.2 Existing Service Stop Inventory...............................................................................52 4.3 Service Stop Activity...............................................................................................53 4.4 Conclusion...............................................................................................................56 ' CHAPTER FIVE............................. ........57 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SERVICE PLAN....................................................................57 ' 5.1 System-wide Operational Issues...................................:.:.......:................................57 5.2 Route Level Issues and Opportunities...:...........:....................:.................................58 ' 5.3 Recommended Service Changes......................... .................. .................................64 5.3.1 Short-term Service Recommendations. ..64 5.3.2 Medium-Term Service Recommendations..........................................................76 ' 5.3.3 Long-Term Service Recommendations...............................................................80 5.4 Service Plan Summary.............................................................................................83 5.5 Service Stop Master Plan Recommendations..........................................................85 5.5.1 Bus Stop Classifications..................................................................................:...86 5.5.2 Service Stop'Schematics......................................................................................86 5.5.3 Bus Stop Placement Standards............................................................................90 ' 5.5.4 Service Stop Improvement Recommendations....................................................92 5.5.5 Installation of Additional Service Stops..............................................................93 5.5.6 Summary and Implementation Schedule.............................................................95 ' Short Range Transit Pian Page iii I ' Final Report City of San Luis Obispo ' CHAPTER SIX........................».... ...........»...97 ' IMPLEMENTATION,FINANCIAL,AND CAPITAL PLANS..............................................97 6.1 Implementation Plan................................................................................................97 6.2 Financial Plan..........................................................................................0................97 6.3 Capital Plan....................................................................0.0..................................... 100 Appendices..................»...........».._..........»....................................................... »...............»..102 ' Appendix A........................................................................................................................... 103 AppendixB........................................................................................:.................................. 108 AppendixC.................o....................0..........................o.............................0—........................ 112 117 ' Appendix D.........................................................................0................................................. . 119 AppendixE...................................................................................... ........................... ........ AppendixF........................................................................................................................... 123 ' Appendix G.......................................................................................................................... 126 I I I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page iv Citv of San Luis Obispo Final Report List of Figures ' Figure 1-1 Population Density,San Luis Obispo Transit Service Area..........................................................2 Figure 1-2 School-Aged Population per Square Mile.....................................................................................4 ' Figure 1-3 College-Aged Population per Square Mile....................................................................................5 Figure 14 Senior Population per Square Mile...............................................................................................6 Figure1-5 Major Trip Generators.................................................................................................................10 Figure1-6 City Organization Chart..............................................................................................................13 ' Figure 1-7 San Luis Obispo Transit Fixed-Route Network..........................................................................17 Figure 2-1 Operating Expenses,FY 2002.....................................................................................................24 ' Figure 2-2 Operating Revenue,FY 2002......................................................................................................25 Figure 2-3 Cal Poly Annual Contributions,FY 1998-2006..........................................................................26 Figure 24 San Luis Obispo Transit Financial Trends,FY 1997—FY 2002................................................27 ' Figure 2-5 Farebox Recovery Ratio,FY 1997—FY 2002............................................................................28 Figure 2-6 San Luis Obispo Transit Annual Vehicle Hours,FY 1997—2002.............................................30 Figure 2-7 Annual Ridership&Vehicle Revenue Miles,FY 1997—2001..................................................30 ' Figure 3-1 Affiliation with Cal Poly.............................................................................................................33 Figure 3-2 Total Household Income by Affiliation with Cal Poly................................................................34 Figure 3-3 Age Distribution of Survey Respondents....................................................................................34 ' Figure 34 Total Household Income.............................................................................................................35 Figure 3-5 Household Vehicle Ownership.........................................:..........................................................36 Figure 3-6 Access Modes to Bus Stop..................................................................................................:.......36 ' Figure 3-7 Frequency of Use.......................................................................................................:......,.........38 Figure3-8 Length of Use.................................................................................................................... ...... ..39 Figure3-9 Fare Media..................................................................................................................................39 ' Figure 3-I0 Trip Purpose..............................................................................................................................40 Figure 3-11 San Luis Obispo Service Area Zone Map.................................................................................42. ' Figure 3-12 San Luis Obispo Transit Service Ratings..................................................................................44 Figure 3-13 Service Ratings.by Route......:...................................................................................................45 Figure 3-14 Likelihood of Using Service Improvements..............................................................................46 ' Figure 4-1 Service Stop Activity Map..........................................................................................................55 Figure 5-1 Proposed New Route 6 Alignment.............................................................................................66 Figure 5-2 Proposed New Route 2 Alignment....................................................................................:.......68 ' Figure 5-3 Proposed Route I Elimination of Service to Cal Poly Agriculture Building.............................69 Figure 5-4 Proposed Evening Service Routes..............................................................................................72 Figure 5-5 Proposed Downtown Trolley Route Realignment......................................................................74 Figure5-6 Map of Specific Areas................................................................................................................78 Figure 5-7 Possible Cross-Town Service Alignment...................................................................................83 Figure 5-8 Proposed Route Network...........................................................................................................85 Figure 5-9 Example of Type 4 Service Stop.................................................................................................87 Figure 5-10 Type 4 Service Stop Schematic.................................................................................................88 Figure 5-11 Type 3 Service Stop Schematic.................................................................................................88 Figure 5-12 Type 2 Service Stop Schematic.................................................................................................89 Short Range Transit Plan Page v Citv of San Luis Obispo Final Report tFigure 5-13 Type 1 Service Stop Schematic.................................................................................................89 Figure 5-14 Service Stop Master Plan Map.................................................................................................96 1 1 1 1 1 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page vi City of San Luis Obispo Final Report List of Tables ' Table I-i Top San Luis Obispo Employers(over 200 employees)................................................................8 Table 1-2 Local Colleges and Universities........................................................................................:............9 ' Table 1-3 Fixed-Route Performance Standards.................................................................................:.........14 Table 14 Fated-Route Service Characteristics.............................................................................................16 Table1-5 Fare Structure...............................................................................................................................18 Table 1-6 Inventory of San Luis Obispo Transit Vehicle Fleet....................................................................19 ' Table 1-7 Runabout Service Area Zones......................................................................................................20 Table 2-1 San Luis Obispo Transit Operating Statistics by Route/Service.FY 2001........................:..........22 ' Table 2-2 San Luis Obispo Transit Operating Statistics,FY 2002..........:.........................:..........................23 Table 2-3 San Luis Obispo Transit Expenses,FY 2002...............................................................................23 Table 24 San Luis Obispo Transit Revenue,FY 2002................................................................................24 ' Table 2-5 Cal Poly Annual Contributions,FY 1998-2006...........................................................................25 Table 2-6 San Luis Obispo Transit Expense and Revenue Trends,FY 1997—2002...................................27 Table 2-7 San Luis Obispo Transit Operating Statistics,FY 1997—2002...................................................29 ' Table 3-1 Sampling Rates from Onboard Transit Survey...........................................................................32 Table3-2 Automobile Availability........::.....................................................................................................35 Table 3-3 Routes Being Connected From.....................................................................................................37 ' Table 3-4 Routes Being Connected To.........................................................................................................37 Table 3-5 Common Attractions by Zone......................................................................................................43 Table 3-6 Most Common Origin-Destination Pars.......................................................................................43 ' Table 3-7 Most Common Origin-Destination Pair by Route..............................................................::........44 Table 3-8 Passenger Profile by San Luis Obispo Transit Route...................................................................48 Table 3-9 Dominant Passenger Profiles of Students and Non-Students.......................................................49 Table 4-1 1997 SRTP Facilities Improvement Matrix.....................................................:............................52 Table 4-2 San Luis Obispo Transit Service Stop Amenities................ ........................................................53 ' Table 4-3 Activity Scoring Methodology.......................:.....................:........................................................54 Table 4-4 Top 14 Service Stops by Number of Boardings......:....................................................................54 Table 5-1 Proposed Downtown Trolley Service Levels and Costs..............................................................74 Table 5-2 Summary of Short and Medium-Term Service Recommandations.............................................84 Table 5-3 Service Stop Classification..,... ...........................................................................................86 Table 5-4 Service Stop Amenities by Stop Class..........................................................................................86 ' Table 5-5 Service Stop Placement Standards.......................................................................................:.......90 Table 5-6 Comparative Analysis of Bus Stop Locations.............................................................................91 Table 5-7 Recommended Service Stop Improvements.......::.......................................................................92 Table 5-8 Additional Service Stops,Existing Routes..................................................................................94 ' Table 5-9 Additional Service Stops,New Routes.........................................................................................94 Table 5-10 Decommissioned Service Stops........................................._......................................................95 ' Table 6-1 Proposed Implementation Schedule............................................................................................97 Table 6-2 San Luis Obispo Transit Financial Plan,FY 03/04—FY 12/13..................................................99 Table 6-3 Capital Improvement and Vehicle Replacement Plan...............................................................101 ' Table A-1 Facility Scoring Criteria............................................................................................................112 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page vii ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report fTable A-2 Facility.Activity.and Needs Index Scoring for All San Luis Obispo Transit Stops................113 I 1 1 I IShort Range Transit Plan Page viii City of San Luis Obispo Final Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of San Luis Obispo is a central coast community situated between San Francisco and Los Angeles. San Luis Obispo is home to 44,174 residents (January 2002) and is the regional 1 economic center to nearly 250,000 people throughout San Luis Obispo County. San Luis Obispo Transit's service area includes the City of San Luis Obispo and parts of San Luis Obispo County, an area of roughly 15 square miles. This document is the short-range transit plan for San Luis Obispo Transit. It reviews the current state of the system, profiles existing transit users,proposes changes to improve the system, and provides service, financial and capital plans through fiscal year 2013. An important first step in any short-range transit plan is to understand the characteristics of the service area and to identify areas that will generate or attract transit trips. San Luis Obispo 1 Transit's service area includes many locations that attract large numbers of people, one of the most significant is California Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly). Other major trip. generators include large employers, shopping areas, health care facilities, social ' services, and secondary schools. The current route network does a fairly good job of serving major generators in San Luis Obispo,but there is room for improvement. ' Based on an analysis of the area's demographic characteristics and the location of major trip generators, transit demand is focused in three areas. One area is east of Laurel Lane, surrounding Orcutt Road. Another area of transit demand is north of the intersection of Highway 101 and ' Santa Rosa Street. The last area of transit demand is west of Highway 1 and north of Foothill Boulevard. The review of existing service and future service recommendations pays particular attention to these areas. ' The next steps in a short-range transit plan are to understand the performance of the current ' system and to develop baseline conditions for San Luis Obispo Transit. During fiscal year 2000- 2001, Routes 3, 4, and 5 were the most heavily used, accumulating the highest annual ridership. Routes 5 and 6 were the most efficient routes in terms of passengers carried per vehicle hour. ' Routes 1, 5, and 6 were above the system average of 24.3 passengers per hour. Routes 3 and 4 were only slightly below the system average. The least efficient routes were Route 2,the Trolley, and the system-wide tandem. The average number of passengers per revenue vehicle mile was 2.3. Performing above this average were Routes 5, 6, the system-wide tandem, and the trolley. Routes 2 and 3 were the only routes performing significantly below average. ' During the week of May 13-19,2002,the consulting team conducted an on-board survey to better understand the needs and characteristics of current San Luis Obispo Transit passengers. In the survey, respondents were asked for basic demographic information, details about their trip, ' satisfaction with the service, and interest in service expansions. Of the over 1,200 responses, 68 percent were collected on a weekday and the remaining 32 percent were collected on the weekend. Most of the respondents were young, had low household incomes, had no access to a ' vehicle; and used transit more than 3 times a week. Over three-quarters of the respondents rated ' Short Range Transit Plan Page ix City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Ithe transit service as good or excellent and the most desired service improvements were evening service and higher frequency service. Another component of this short-range transit plan was to develop a bus stop master plan. In this 1 step, bus stops were classified according to the level of passenger activity, matched with appropriate amenities, and given recommendations for specific improvements. Part of this exercise was also to update the existing service stop standards, the new standards require that. 1 type 1 stops be equipped with a transit sign that lists the route numbers stopping at that stop;type 2 stops have the same amenities as type 1 and should also be equipped with a bench and a transit sign; type 3 stops have the same amenities as type 2 and should also have a shelter and an additional bench; and type 4 stops have the same amenities as type 3 and should have a second bench, a trash container, night lighting, a pay phone, a bike rack, and an electronic messaging sign. The installation of some of these amenities, such as night lighting and electronic messaging signs will depend on site characteristics and the presence of discretionary funding. Overall, San Luis Obispo Transit has a very well equipped service stop.network.For example,92 ' percent of the system's signs are in "Fair" or "Good" condition. In terms of other amenities, 53 percent of all stops have at least one bench and 25 percent are equipped with shelters. Of all the. service stops, 81 percent are in a location with sidewalks. The service network is less equipped with non-essential amenities that improve the ease and comfort of the riders' experience. For instance, only 25% of all stops have a trashcan, 9% have a payphone, and less than 1% is equipped with bike racks. The area of core service in San Luis Obispo is the Cal Poly campus and the area north of South Street,east of Highway 10I,west of Johnson Street, and south of Foothill Boulevard Within this ' core area,stops should be placed every other block(roughly 1/8 mile).Areas outside of this core are considered to be on the periphery. In the periphery,there should be 4 to 5 stops per mile. San Luis Obispo's network of bus stops meets or exceeds these standards in almost all cases. Based on field reconnaissance and the initial stages of the planning process, several issues were identified that San Luis Obispo Transit should monitor. Challenges facing the system are: improving ridership satisfaction on routes with long headways;evaluating the feasibility of and/or implementing evening service, evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of route duplication . north of the downtown transfer center, and better connecting riders to destinations in the southern part of the city. Each of these challenges must be addressed with service goals and fiscal constraints in mind. ' With the above challenges in mind,the following recommendations should be implemented in the short tern (FY 03/04 to FY 04/05). A major recommendation is to separate service between Cal I Poly and downtown from the routes serving other parts of the city. The"New Route 6"would be a campus circulator that would provide the Cal Poly community with more frequent, improved transit services, while simultaneously improving the transit system's overall productivity. ' Another recommendation is to consolidate Routes 2 and 6 into one route, the "New Route 2," ' Short Range Transit Plan Page x City of San Luis Obispo Final Report eliminating the northern loop that serves Cal Poly and Foothill Boulevard, and ramming in both directions along South lEguera. This new route would extend across Highway 101 along Los Osos Valley Road, in order to serve the new shopping complex on Auto Park Way, between US 101 and Madonna Road. With a shorter distance to travel the new route would be able to provide significantly increased service frequency. In order to strengthen Route 1's performance and overall convenience, it is recommended that the City eliminate Route 1 service along Highland Drive to the Cal Poly Ag Building. This would make additional funding available for other services and improve overall route performance. Another service recommendation that the City should consider in the short-term is providing evening service. If the City chooses to implement evening service, it is recommended that service be provided on three routes, operating from the end of regular daytime service until 8:30 PM, Monday through Friday,while school is in session at Cal Poly. The suggested routes serve many 1 of the same areas as the daytime routes but none of the evening routes duplicates the alignment of daytime routes,with the exception of the western loop of New Route 6.If the City expands fixed- route service to 8:30 PM,it will also be required to provide demand-responsive service during the ' same hours in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It is recommended that the City of San Luis Obispo stop using Transportation Development Act ' (TDA) funds for operation of the downtown Trolley. It is recommended that the City impose a modest ($025) fare for the Trolley and introduce a local business "Trolley Surcharge" to help finance the service. Service changes are also recommended that focus available resources on the ' tourist market by providing more efficient and useful service for roughly the same cost. At this time, it is also recommended that the City meet with employers to develop a "flashpass" ' system for employees as part of the City's trip reduction program. A flashpass system would allow the employees of participating companies to simply flash an employee identification card in order to board a bus. Then the City should take the necessary steps to implement this program, ' which may include adopting a trip reduction program as an element of each specific area plan. In the mid-term (FY 05/06 to FY 07/08)there are a series of other changes that San Luis Obispo ' should consider. First, it is important that San Luis Obispo Transit continue monitoring planning and development to anticipate where additional service may be needed. However, new ' development that is planned for the Margarita and Airport areas will require significant infrastructure improvements before transit service can be effectively provided to these areas. Whenever possible, transit system staff should stay involved in the planning process such that ' development projects (e.g. senior housing) are located in close proximity to the existing network of transit services. ' As a means of increasing ridership and providing a higher level of service to the high school community, it is recommended that the.City extend a minor route deviation from either Route I or 3 to San Luis Obispo High School. This can be done within the proposed level of service for 1 IShort Range Transit Plan Page xi City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Ithe routes and at a minor additional cost to add one run before school begins and another run shortly after school lets out. Another way to increase ridership would be to improve peak service. Because peaking is limited in San Luis Obispo due to the influence of riders from Cal Poly, enhanced peak service would require that resource be transferred from less productive to more productive routes. When it comes time to implement this change,the routes should be reevaluated to determine what shift in resources would benefit riders the most. In addition to improving service and increasing ridership, San Luis Obispo Transit needs to ' monitor its ongoing operating costs. It is recommended that in the next three to five years the City conduct a comprehensive evaluation of its arrangement with SLORTA for the provision of paratransit service. It will be important to ensure that this is the most cost effective means of ' providing paratransit services in the City of San Luis Obispo. This analysis should include a trend analysis of paratransit operating and financial data, in addition to a peer review to provide some context on appropriate costs and operating statistics. San Luis Obispo should also consider ways of increasing its fare revenue. The cash fare has not increased since 1997 and increasing the fare to$1.00 in the next three to five years would provide ' additional revenue to improve and expand existing services. While increasing fares, it is recommended that some type of deep discounting be introduced as well to offset the impact of the fare increase. Deep discounting strategies consist of multiple ticket books and unlimited-use day, ' week, and month passes. While a fare increase may be appropriate in the near future, the City of San Luis Obispo should proceed cautiously to avoid losing a significant percentage of its ridership. ' Long-term recommendations (FY 08/09 and beyond) are more speculative in nature and are subject to change by development, fiscal, and political forces. Nonetheless, the issues outlined ' below are ones that San Luis Obispo should pay close attention to in the coming years. Should additional resources be identified or demand increase for this service, it is suggested that the City ' consider cross-town bus service in the southern part of San Luis Obispo. One challenge in the design of this service is the lack of direct cross-town street connections between the Sinshiemer neighborhood and South Higuera corridor.However,plans exist for roadway improvements in the ' Margarita and Airport areas that could eventually eliminate this problem. When infrastructure is added in this area, a two-way route could circulate passengers along the corridor between Orcutt Road,Broad Street, South Street,and the social service centers along South Higuera Road. ' Another service option that may become feasible is express service to Santa Maria or the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near Avila Beach. To evaluate the demand for and feasibility of ' express service, the City should implement express service on major corridors to "shadow" existing service during peak hours, on a strictly exploratory basis. Express bus service is considered a long-term issue that is not ready for immediate implementation, but should be ' considered as a potential service improvement over the next five to ten years. ' Short Range Transit Plan Page xii Citv of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Other long-term options include subscription bus service and demand responsive services.City of San Luis Obispo staff should evaluate the demand for subscription bus service and it should be considered for implementation if warranted. At present, it is not recommended that the City implement subscription bus service.. The City should also evaluate the potential for demand responsive services in new transit markets that could be served using non-traditional, small vehicle service. As intimated above, the potential for new transit services in the long-term will ' depend heavily on how future growth takes place in and around San Luis Obispo. Using existing funding and expense levels, and the short and medium-term recommendations ' above, a service implementation plan was developed that suggests when the various changes should take place.Based on the service implementation plan and estimates of changing costs and revenues, a financial plan and capital plan were developed for the life of this short-range transit ' plan.Barring any unforeseen increases in expenses or reductions in revenue,the City of San Luis Obispo's transit services will have sufficient funds to continue for the life of this plan. ' Many issues have been considered for the San Luis Obispo Transit system and its individual routes during the development of this plan. As was noted earlier, the City of San Luis Obispo does a good job of providing service coverage to residential areas (approximately 75% of the ' City's population lives within a '/4 mile of a transit route) and major trip generators within the service area, and it is expected that implementing the SRTP recommendations will only enhance the transit service provided throughout the city. I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page xiii Cin,of San Luis Obispo Final Report CHAPTER ONE OVERVIEW OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSIT SYSTEM The City of San Luis Obispo provides public transportation services throughout its city limits and to several unincorporated areas in San Luis Obispo County. This chapter provides an overview of the City's transit system, referred to as San Luis Obispo Transit, including its service area demographics and growth trends. I1.1 Service Area Demographics The City of San Luis Obispo is a central coast community situated between San Francisco and Los Angeles. San Luis Obispo is home to 44,174 residents (January, 2002), and serves as a regional economic center to the nearly 250,000 people throughout San Luis Obispo County. San Luis Obispo Transit's service area includes the City of San Luis Obispo and parts of San Luis Obispo County,an area of roughly 15 square miles. San Luis Obispo County is home to California Polytechnic State University- San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), which reported a fall 2001 on-campus enrollment of 17,066 undergraduate and 1,013 graduate students. Although technically in San Luis Obispo County, Cal Poly is directly north of I the city and is within its sphere of influence. As is the case with post-secondary public education institutions throughout the state, Cal Poly is experiencing tremendous growth.Applications to Cal Poly nearly doubled between 1993 and 2001 and 2001 enrollment increased by 7% over the previous year. As a result,Cal Poly students are a significant presence in the city and.represent a large portion of San Luis Obispo Transit's service population. All of San Luis Obispo Transit's regular routes serve Cal Poly. All data used in the creation of the following tables and figures were derived from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing, examined at the block group level. Additional data were gathered from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)and the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. 1.1.1 Population and Population Density San Luis Obispo has experienced a relatively slow growth rate over the past decade. The city experienced a 5% increase in population between 1990 and 2001, compared to 13% for San Luis Obispo County and 15% statewide. This was considerably slower than growth in the 1980's, when the city's population grew approximately 20% and the County grew by 40%. Current population forecasts predict that growth in the City will continue at roughly 1% a year, slightly faster than recent growth. Identifying where this growth has occurred is an important aspect of transit planning. Population density (population per square mile) in particular is a key indicator of transit potential. Figure 1-1 illustrates the 2000 population density around the City of San Luis Obispo. I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 1 I City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Figure 1-1 Population Density, San Luis Obispo Transit Service Area I 1 I , 1 1 1 ' Legend Population Per Sq.We 11.4-1280.8 1280.9-3289.4 3289.5-5808.2 C� 5ew 3-8399.1 8399.2.13354.7 SLO Tnmsit Routes ' Figure 1-1: Population Density, SLO Transit Service Area R Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2000 1,900 950 0 Meters 1,900 w+E S I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 2 I Citv of San Luis Obispo Final Report The highest population density occurs northeast of downtown San Luis Obispo, between Santa ' Rosa, Highway 101, Foothill Boulevard and California Boulevard. Other high-density neighborhoods are found between Foothill Boulevard and Santa Rosa to the northwest; south of the Cal Poly campus bordered by California, Highway 101 and Grand; and in the southwest ' section of town, bordered by Laurel Lane,Bullock Lane,and Johnson Avenue. These are all areas of high transit potential.- The current bus network serves these population concentrations, although higher population densities do not necessarily receive higher levels of service. ' 1.1.2 Senior and Youth Populations ' Another factor influencing transit ridership is age. For the very young and the very old, age directly impacts mobility, and thus transit use. Until the age of 16 youth are ineligible to drive, making them dependent on others or on non-motorized modes, such as walking and biking, for ' their mobility. Once they turn 16, limited incomes often restrict teens' ability to own and maintain a vehicle. Figure 1-2 illustrates where school-aged youth, aged 5 to 17 are concentrated. The highest concentrations of school children are near Laguna Lake (Los Osos Valley Road and ' Madonna Road), to the southeast in the Laurel-Orcutt area, between Broad, Marsh, and South Higuera, and in residential areas northwest of downtown and Highway 101. The current route network provides transit access to all of these concentrations of young students. ' San Luis Obispo has another group of students who are potential transit riders- college students. Although many students attending Cal Poly own cars, limited parking facilities and parking fees 1 can dissuade them from driving to campus. Once these students become accustomed to the transit system, while using it to commute to school, they are more likely to use it for other trips. High concentrations of college-aged residents are identified in Figure 1-3. The vast majority of students live in the northern part of San Luis Obispo: north of Highway 101 and east of Santa Rosa, and north of Foothill Boulevard. Service to these neighborhoods by the existing transit system is fair, ' but could be improved for those students living more than '/a mile north of Highland and those living in the middle of the loop of routes that serves the Cal Poly campus and downtown. Senior citizens are also an important group to examine when evaluating transit demand. Some seniors prefer not to drive, are physically unable to drive, or cannot afford an automobile. Figure 14 identifies concentrations of seniors within the San Luis Obispo service area.As shown on the ' map, populations of seniors are focused in the southeast around Laurel/Orcutt, in the northeast north of Highway 101 towards Paso Robles, and in the northwest, between Foothill Boulevard and Highway 1. In general, the current routes serve these concentrations of older residents, but future route considerations will need to take into account that many seniors may not be willing to walk '/,mile to reach a bus route. I IShort Range Transit Plan Page 3 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Figure 1-2 School-Aged Population per Square Mile 1 1 Legend t School Aged Children Density 0.00-57.96 57.97-257.4 257.5-438.3 ' 438.4-745.4 745.5-1208 SLO Transh Routes ' Figure 1-2: School Aged Children per Sq. Mile, SLO Transit Service Area N Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2000 w+e ' 1,900 950 0 Meters 1900 mooing s I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 4 City of Son Luis Obispo Final Report Figure 1-3 College-Aged Population per Square Mile n 1 1 ,rte t 1 1 Legend College Aged Population Density ' ---_ 0.51-318.08 318.08-884.55 884-55-1835.97 1835.98-3150.23 ' 315023-7245.32 SLO Transit Routes ' Figure 1-3: College Aged Population per Sq. Mile, SLO Transit Service Area " Source: U.S.Census Bureau, 000 1,900 950 0 Meters 1,900 a+e S ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 5 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 Figure 1-4 Senior Population per Square Mile t 1 ' Legend Senior Population Density ' 0.67-96.18 98.18-311.49 311.49-654.26 ' 654.26-1133.64 0 1133.60-1862.55 SLO Traftt Routes ' Figure 1-4: Senior Population per Sq. Mile, SLO Transit Service Area " Source: U.S.Census Bureau, 00 w�6 1,900 950 0 Meters 1,900 s I 1 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 6 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 1.1.3 Income 1 Income is another indicator of transit demand. People with relatively lower incomes tend to depend on transit for their mobility, while commuters with higher incomes tend to use transit by 1 choice. Both represent significant markets for transit usage. Block level economic data from Census 2000 had not been released at the time of this report's publication, so it was not possible to map the region's income distribution. However, the following descriptive statistics highlight 1 economic factors which may affect San Luis Obispo Transit ridership. According to the City of San Luis Obispo, the average household income for residents of the city was $60,903 in 2000, while the average household income for the County was $48,000. For 1 comparison, the statewide average was $55,000 during this period. The average resident of San Luis Obispo has a higher income than average residents in both the county and the state. Therefore, it is probable that San Luis Obispo residents would utilize San Luis Obispo Transit services for commuting to and from work rather than rely on transit for their entire daily travel . needs. 1 1.1.4 Disabled Population 1 Persons with disabilities are often dependent upon transit because they cannot or choose not to drive. According to the 2000 Census,greater than 21%of the City's disabled population between the ages of 21 and 64 live northwest of Highway 101 and west of Santa Rosa Street.Another 14% 1 live in the downtown census tract,north of South Street, east of Highway 101,and west of Broad Street. Approximately 17% live between Highway 101 and South Higuera Street, south of Prado Road. This population is an extremely important demographic to consider when planning transit 1 service to ensure that the disabled population is well served by transit, as this sector of the population often does not have other mobility options available. 1 1.2 Major Trip Generators Major trip generators are locations frequented by a significant number of people, traveling by all 1 modes, within the study area. Common transit generators include shopping centers, major employers, schools, hospitals, and other support service centers. The location of these generators 1 can provide a useful picture of travel patterns within a given study region. This section identifies major transit generators in and around the City of San Luis Obispo and maps them in Figure.1-5. ' 1.2.1 Employment Centers Many people rely on public transportation to commute to and from work on a daily basis. Table 1 1-1 lists the largest employers in the San Luis Obispo area. Some of these employers have multiple locations, such as San Luis Coastal Unified School District and city services but many others are focused.in a single location. Cal Poly State University is the largest employer, which ' attracts thousands of employees and students to the campus, north of town, followed closely by Short Range Transit Plan Page 7 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report the County of San Luis Obispo. Downtown is also a major employment area,with City Hall and associated municipal buildings, PG&E, and a multitude of smaller retail and commercial offices. ' Other pockets of employment are more widely dispersed, such as Madonna Inn to the southwest, Cuesta College and California Men's Colony on Highway 1 in the southeast. It is these locations that are the most difficult to service with transit because they are located farther from other origins and destinations. 1 Table 1-1 Top San Luis Obispo Employers(over 200 employees) Em"10 er„ _X .INA of,Em10 ' eesM Cal Poly State University 3,307 County of San Luis Obispo 3,000 California Men's Colony 1,646 PG&E 1,500 San Luis Coastal Unified School District 670 Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center 562 Cuesta College 456 City of San Luis Obispo 400 SLO General Hospital* 346 French Hospital 289 ' Madonna Inn 269 *SLO General Hospital may be closing. Source: Community Economic Profile 1001, City ofSat Luis Obispo ' 1.2.2 Malls and Shopping Centers Malls and shopping centers are also primary transit generators. The major retail sites in San Luis Obispo are: downtown, SLO Promenade, Madonna Plaza, Marigold Center, and the Los Osos Valley Road area. ' 1.2.3 Hospitals& Major Clinics ' Hospitals and health centers represent important destinations for the community. For this reason, it is of critical importance that these facilities are well served by transit. There are multiple hospitals and medical centers in San Luis Obispo, many of whom are also major employers. ' Local hospitals and medical centers include: French Hospital Medical Center, San Luis Obispo General Hospital (may be closing), Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center, and Health South Surgery Center. These locations are also shown in Figure 1-5. Most medical facilities are ' clustered in the east and northeast areas of San Luis Obispo. 1.2.4 Support Service and Adult Assistance Centers ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 8 rCity of San Luis Obispo Final Report The County of San Luis Obispo has a wide variety of adult assistance and support service centers, r including job training and placement, non-hospital community health services, mental health centers, case management, and other similar programs. These centers are located on South Higuera near Prado Road, on Broad south of Tank Fane Road and on McMillan Avenue, clustered primarily in the southern part of town. 1.2.5 Schools rSchools with students in grades six and above (ages 12 and above) tend to produce transit ridership. In terms of public schools (including public charter schools and continuation schools), ' San Luis Obispo has four high schools, one middle school, and eight elementary schools. The total enrollment for the San Luis Coastal School District is 7,835 students. There are also a number of private schools in San Luis Obispo, including 2 schools with kindergarten through eighth grade (Laureate Private School and Old Mission School) and one high school (Mission College Preparatory). Enrollment at these private schools is approximately 880. As mentioned before, San Luis Obispo and the surrounding area house multiple institutions of higher education; ' they are listed in Table 1-2. Most schools in San Luis Obispo are located on the periphery of the city. ' Cal Poly deserves special attention because it serves multiple fimctions within the community. It is an employer of over 3,000 people,it is home to almost 2,800 students who live on campus, and it attracts over 17,000 students to classes. Additional housing is being built so that roughly 3,600 ' students can be accommodated on campus by fall 2003. Apartment complexes that cater to students have concentrations of potential transit riders. Complexes with a large number of students include: Stenner Glen(1050 Foothill Boulevard), Mustang Village I (1 Mustang Drive), ' Mustang Village II (200 North Santa Rosa Street), Valencia Apartments (555 Ramona Drive), Garfield Arms & Triangle Apartments (738 Grand Avenue/1885 Garfield Street), El Dorado Apartments (555 Westmont), Czech Chalet Apartments (572 Foothill Boulevard), and Murray ' Station(1262 Murray Street). Table 1-2 Local Colleges and Universities ral ifomia Polytechnic State University,San Luis Obispo 17,552 ' esta Community College 10,165 an Hancock College 10,000 ' Sources: Cal Poly IPA Fact Book.Cuesta College website.and Allan Hancock's Office of the Registrar. r r ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 9 r City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Figure 1-5 Major Trip Generators 1 ' Cuesta College 1 `— CalPoty Campus UiiiyersiSq are Sier[a�!f allpsp"ihal, n 'k�arli ' OSen Luis Obispo Hi- , School Mission Miidlimil RenalCare •. S r Center PG&E ' AnilcaIt Station J San Luis Obispo Geridra `- '- Greyliound Statlini Siitshisiner ScWool ' Laguna Middle School Mad nna Plaza Sttalt'er' �L'guna.Plaza ' DMV / Feafic,Beaolt High Sctioof Day Center Social Security CJ Social Services ' Marigold Center EEO ' Legend O Major Trip Generators Population Density 11.4-1280.8 1280.9-3269.4 3269.5-56062 5606.3-8399.1 ' 8399.2-13354.7 SLO Transit Routes ' Figure 1-5: Major Trip Generators, SLO Transit Service Area " Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2000 1,900 950 0 Maters 1.900 w+e S ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 10 I ICity of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1.3 Summary of Potential Transit Need The characteristics described above indicate where demand for transit service is expected to be the highest. Based on the discussion, the traditional transit market, e.g. the transit-dependent populations most likely to use the bus and the destinations that attract them, is focused in three areas. One area is east of Laurel Lane (surrounding Orcutt Road until it veers southward),which generally has a high population density with concentrations of seniors and school-aged children. 1 Although this region has high population concentrations, there are few major trip generators. Another area of expected transit demand is northeast of the intersection between Highway 101 and Santa Rosa Street. It has a high population density with high concentrations of school and I college-aged children. This area also includes the major trip generators of Cal Poly, various student housing complexes and Sierra Vista Hospital. The last area of anticipated transit demand is west of Highway 1 and north of Foothill Boulevard. This area's high population density includes mid-level densities of college-aged residents, seniors, and school-aged children but it lacks major,non-residential trip generators. The major challenges of San Luis Obispo's development pattern are its geographically dispersed pockets of residential development and the location of retail development and social services in low-density areas. Often neighborhoods with high population densities and high transit needs are isolated from one another. This is the case for the neighborhood northeast of Santa Rosa and Highway 101 and the neighborhood around Laurel and Orcutt. Potential transit users and trip generators anchor both ends of the corridor that starts around Santa Rosa and Foothill and ends south of the.Femwood Oceanaire Mobile Home Park, between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and Johnson. However, in between the ends, the population density decreases and trip generators are spread out. Important social services, such as the Social Security Office, are isolated in low- density areas that have limited accessibility from employment and residential centers. If development along Tank Farm Road occurs as planned, it will help support additional transit services that better connect the southeast to the city. Currently, San Luis Obispo Transit does a fairly good job of providing service to major generators and population concentrations within the system's service area. A quarter-mile buffer around the fixed routes shows that most of the urbanized land within the City of San Luis Obispo is served by transit (approximately 75% of the city's population). In addition, the existing route network serves the neighborhoods with the highest concentrations of school-aged children, 1 college-aged residents, and senior citizens. Refinements to the current route network will help match service levels to the degree of transit demand and improve service to major generators or residential neighborhoods that warrant it. As development continues in San Luis Obispo, it will be important to track residential and commercial growth and plan transit expansions accordingly. Areas of particular interest are those that already have specific area plans,such as the areas of Margarita,Orcutt, and the airport. Short Range Transit Plan Page 11 City o/'San Luis Obispo Final Report 1.4 San Luis Obispo Transit Governance and Organizational Structure ' San Luis Obispo Transit, established in 1974, is administered by the City of San Luis Obispo through the City's public works department. The City of San Luis Obispo, incorporated in 1856, is a charter city that operates under the "Council-Mayor-Administrative Officer" form of government. The City's organization chart can be seen in Figure 1-6. The City's elected officials are the mayor and the four council members. The City Administrative Officer (CAO) reports to 1 the City Council and appoints each of the city department heads, including the Director of Public Works. The Transit Manager reports to the Deputy Public Works Director and provides direct oversight of the transit system. ' 1.5 Contracting of Service Provision ' San Luis Obispo Transit contracts with a private provider for the day-today operation of its transit services. Currently, First Transit operates the transit services. Under the terms of the contract, the private provider is responsible for the operation of the fixed-route transit service, ' transit staffing and vehicle maintenance, while San Luis Obispo Transit is responsible for providing the vehicles, office space, a maintenance facility, system administration, planning and marketing services. 1.6 Performance Objectives and Service Standards ' To evaluate the performance of the fixed-route transit service, San Luis Obispo Transit has adopted a series of performance standards, which also serve as an integral component of the City's contract with First Transit. Specifically, the performance standards are included in clauses ' within the contract that either reward or penalize First Transit depending on if they meet the particular performance standard. Table 1-3 provides a summary of the system's performance standards. As the data in this table indicate, San Luis Obispo Transit is either meeting or ' exceeding the majority of the system's performance standards. The only performance standard that San Luis Obispo Transit was unable to meet in FY 2001-2002 was for passengers per hour. The system will need to closely monitor this standard over the coming years. The transit system ' just barely met the twenty percent farebox recovery ratio and should continue to monitor this important financial standard closely. San Luis Obispo Transit performed quite well with regards to preventative maintenance, trip completions, on-time performance, and vehicle miles per ' preventable accident and between road calls. Short Range Transit Plan Page 12 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Figure 1-6 City Organization Chart I s d WHO � �$}giii g$•p� pppy� ' e :8S I.7 �Q YYY 6C6�': t a Fs ro r •� a :8 i O�y E s pr 3 e c I O t" P iN ' 2 I � Z Z o s c & _ oil- I? lI? Ul W Short Range Transit Plan Page 13 I City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Table 1-3 Fixed-Route Performance Standards x R f Performance Standard X1'1'20012002 �b R:!!♦e. `•�'' iY t.li aw ..o yo, 1 Fa a � i " '^ �.x. '. P.erformanceMQ � Attainment of a minimum threshold 206/o farebox recovery ratio 20.6%1 rate for farebox recovery Met standard Operate service in a manner that will 26.0 passengers per hour 19.8 passengers per maximize productivity hour' Did not meet standard Operate service in a manner that will 95%of scheduled Met standard in the maximize system effectiveness through departures on-time or up to last 12 months, a provision of reliable transit service 5 minutes late 100%trip completion rate Met standard, Greater than 4,000 vehicle Met standard in last 12 miles between road calls months, Service should be operated safely Greater than 70,000 revenue 85,057 revenue vehicle vehicle miles per miles per preventable ' preventable accident accident, Met standard 100% of PM inspections Met standard, completed within 10% of scheduled mileage ' Source: Lawler Consulting. "City of San Luis Obispo Transit: Final White Paper, Review of FY 2001- 02,"November 1,2002. ,November,2001 to October,2002. 1.7 Transit Services Provided 1 San Luis Obispo Transit provides intra-city fixed-route transit service, which includes six transit routes and a free trolley service in the downtown area. Table 1-4 describes the operating characteristics for all fixed routes in the San Luis Obispo Transit system and Figure 1-7 presents a map of the fixed-route network.As seen in this map all routes serve the downtown transfer center at Osos and Palm. The following describes each route's general coverage area and major destinations served. Route 1 Broad, Johnson/Cal Poly — Route 1 consists of two one-way loops serving the northwestern and southeastern sections of San Luis Obispo. Major attractions on Route 1 include Cal Poly's Agriculture Building, Sierra Vista Hospital, the library, the county government building, Staples,the shelter,French Hospital,and San Luis Obispo General Hospital. Route 2 S.Higuera/Cal Poly/Foothill- Route 2 generally serves the area north and southwest of downtown San Luis Obispo with one-way service. Major trip origins and destinations include: Cal Poly (Vista Grande, University Union, and Graphic Arts), downtown, the Department of Short Range Transit Plan Page 14 Citv of San Luis Obispo Final Report Motor Vehicles, Social Security and other major social services, and the Day Center on South Higuera. ' Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Airport/Cal Poly-Route 3 serves north and southeast San.Luis Obispo ' with two one-way loops. One loop serves Sierra Vista Hospital, downtown, and Cal Poly while the larger loop provides access to French Hospital, San Luis Obispo General Hospital, Equal Employment Office, San Luis Obispo Airport, Staples, and Mission Plaza. ' Route 4 Madonna/Laguns Lake/Cal Poly- Route 4 is a single one-way loop that covers a large area over the northeast, north, south, and southwest parts of town. The route provides access to ' Cal Poly (Graphic Arts, Mott- Gym, and Vista Grande), Downtown, the Senior Center, the Greyhound bus station, Madonna Plaza, the Promenade, the Post Office, Laguna Plaza, and University Square. ' Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonns- Route 5 is very similar to Route 4, covering the . northeast and southwest parts of town in one large loop. Major destinations include Cal Poly ' (University Union, Graphic Arts, Mustang Stadium, and Vista Grande), Downtown, the Senior Center, the Amtrak station, the Greyhound bus station, Madonna Plaza,the Promenade, the Post Office,Laguna Plaza, and University Square. ' Route 6 South Higuera/Foothill/Cal Poly- Route 6 covers the area north and southwest of downtown. Major destinations include Cal Poly (Graphic Arts, Mott Gym, Vista Grande), ' Downtown, the. Children's Museum, Food 4 Less, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and different social services along South Higuera. ' Downtown Trolley - The trolley provides transit service in downtown San Luis Obispo. On Thursday evenings the trolley extends its service to area hotels on Monterey to enable visitors to reach the weekly Farmers' Market. In addition to the hotels on Monterey and the Fanners' ' Market,the trolley passes by the library, county government center, Mission Plaza,and Historical Museum. 1 I IShort Range Transit Plan Page 15 I ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Table 14 Fixed-Route Service Characteristics ' Route Weekdays Saturda /Sunday& Holidays Span of Headways #of Span of Headways #of Service minutes Buses Service minutes Buses ' 1 Broad/Johnson/ 5:54AM— 76 1 No Service Cal Poly 7:05PM 2 South Higuera/ 6:24AM— 40 2 7:59AM 40 2 ' Cal Pol /Foothill 7:04PM —6:07 PM 3 Johnson/Airport/ 6:02AM— 72 1 7:47AM 72 1 Broad/Cal Poly 7:1 OPM —6:05PM ' 4 Madonna/Laguna 6:12AM— 33 2 7:55AM 66 1 Lake/Cal Poly 7:19PM —5:44PM 5 Cal Poly/Laguna/ 6:08AM— 34 2 7:52AM 68 1 ' Madonna 7:39PM —5:59PM 6 South Higuera/ 6:45AM— 69 1 No Service Foothill/Cal Poly 7 21P ' Weekda Sat/San/Hori Thursday TR Downtown 12:OOPM 12:OOPM ' Troll — 5:OOPM 15 1 —9:OOPM 27 1 Historically, the bus schedule for San Luis Obispo Transit was designed to allow timed transfers ' at the Downtown Transit Center. Timed transfers allow passengers to change from one route to another with minimal waiting. For this type of system, known as a "pulse system," to work, all buses must arrive and depart at the same time. Over time, the routes were lengthened, such that the actual time it took to run a bus route was longer than what was provided in the schedule. This created undesirable conditions where drivers were either speeding in order to meet scheduled arrival times or the buses were chronically late.In order to address this issue,the Transit Manager ' temporarily eliminated the pulse system and scheduled buses according to the time required to safely drive each route,the natural running time. ' Routes now operate on time,but arrive at irregular times because the running time for most routes is not one how. Although this is common in many cities, it was new for San Luis Obispo and it can make the bus system harder to use.Therefore,changing the scheduled running time has made ' it somewhat more challenging for passengers to figure out the schedule and their transfer times have increased,but it has improved the system's safety and on-time performance. However,this is a temporary solution that should be rectified after the public input and the short-range transit ' plan processes have finalized any route changes. I I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 16 I r r Ir rr • - .• j • _ ISN i.r.�I 1 '1.� �` T � d � 1 r7 L oar�•\ �<y'i \ Jig w l e ^ � � V� � 1 •i/��~ ��%/. `�u,�;'�^' '��r� �9,�s �� '^, -^1 ��'(1'•..'v�� .� \��, ^ T � I::��!� � � ".�.F"•i-k-�n`'. \r��I�� C..��i/A3"r`�•OY{ a - .e''�'��'a b 1')�,3,y. Via. b✓' �� Jl-,i+�` MOR =t;.,� ..,�.''4� . s"�•r � a l ,y. ' '��y' I�JJtr. ��•� yQ� �a 4 ��f C�-• ^ A of AL� C Pf 2,000x,000O;MIM etes �Q 2,000 ICity of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1.8 Fare Structure San Luis Obispo Transit passengers have several fare payment options, including cash fares, a universal pass arrangement with Cal Poly, and monthly passes. The Downtown Trolley is free for all passengers while the Gold Pass program provides free transit passes to employees who work 1 in downtown and live within San Luis Obispo's city limits. The monthly Regional Pass is provided by SLORTA and is honored by CCAT, San Luis Obispo Transit, and SCAT. The City receives 2.5% of the gross annual sales of the pass. As part of the City's TDM program, the Regional Pass is available to City employees. The Universal Pass is a book of coupons (each worth $0.25); all transit providers in the county honor the coupons. Most transfers are free, but ' passengers transferring from the Trolley or from the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) system are required to pay the full fare to transfer onto San Luis Obispo Transit's regular bus routes. Table 1-5 summarizes San Luis Obispo Transit's fare options and a complete ' listing of the fare policies can be found in Appendix G. Table 1-5 Fare Structure NX M IT IN EM I TMP Fa�aT «µ1-1y1s x i ,4SF •`, 3ry rrs s �,Fsl a_ . .a Regular Cash Fare $0.75 ' Senior 60+ /Disabled Cash Fare $0.35 Regular Monthly Pass $24.00 Regional Pass(monthly) $50.00 1 Universal Pass Q20 $.25 coupons) $30.00 Quarterly Pass $72.00 Senior/Disabled Monthly Pass $7.50 Senior/Disabled/K-12 Student $35.00 Regional Pass(monthly) ' Transfer from Trolley Full Fare Transfer from SLO Transit or CCAT Free Gold Pass Free ' Children Under 5 with Fare-paying Adult Free Cal Poly Affiliates with Valid Student ID Prepaid ' 1.9 Composition of Revenue Fleet The current San Luis Obispo Transit fleet contains twenty-two vehicles. The vehicle fleet is comprised of a diverse array.of vehicles, including high and low-floor buses,buses manufactured between 1982 and 2002, and buses of varying lengths(from 27' to 40').Table 1-6 details the fleet inventory. All San Luis Obispo Transit vehicles are wheelchair accessible, in accordance with I requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The wheelchair lifts on some of the older vehicles were rehabilitated in the summer of 2002. Short Range Transit Plan Page 18 I ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' 1.10 Maintenance of Vehicles San Luis Obispo Transit vehicles are stored, refueled, and maintained at the maintenance and operations facility located at 29 Prado Road in the southwestem part of San Luis Obispo. As ' mentioned earlier,First Transit is responsible for all vehicle maintenance. Table 1-6 Inventory of San Luis Obispo Transit Vehicle Fleet ' Vehicle Year Manufactamr Vehicle BWy Style Fuel Vehicle Status Number Length ' 128 1986 Gillig 35 High Floor Diesel Active 129 1986 Gillijz 35 fligh Floor Diesel Active 130 1982 Orion 30 High Floor Diesel Active 131 1982 Orion 30 ffigh Floor Diesel Active 132 1982 Orion 30 1-ligh Floor Diesel Active 136 1984 Orion 35 High Floor Diesel Decommissioned ' 140 1992 Gillig 40 ffigh Floor Diesel Active 141 1992 Gillig 40 Egh Floor Diesel Active 142 1994 Orion 40 High Floor CNG Contingency ' 143 1994 Orion 40 High Floor CNG Contingency 144 1997 Gillig 35 High Floor Diesel Active ' 145 1997 Gillig 35 11igh Floor Diesel Active 146 1997 Gillig 35 High Floor Diesel Active 150 1997 Gillig 35 High Floor Diesel Active 1 2151 2000 Gillip, 40 Low Floor Diesel Active 2152 2000 Gillig 40 Low Floor Diesel Active 2153 2000 Gillig 40 Low Floor Diesel Active ' 2154 2002 Gillig 40 Low Floor Diesel Active 2155 2002 Gillig 40 Low Floor Diesel Active 2156 2002 Giffig 40 Low Floor Diesel Active ' T-101 1992 Chance 27 lEgh Floor Diesel Active T-102 1984 GMC 27 High Floor Gasoline Contingency ' 1.11 Demand Response Service ' SLORTA is responsible for administering the demand response service for the City and County of San Luis Obispo. The demand response service is provided through a contractor-operated service called "Runabout'. This door-to-door transportation service complements the fixed-route ' transit network in San Luis Obispo County in accordance with ADA. Runabout service is provided within the City of San Luis Obispo Monday through Friday 6:00 AM — 7:00 PM and Saturday/Sunday 6:00 AM — 6:00 PM. In the Five-Cities area, service runs Monday through ' Friday 6:00 AM—7:30 PM, Saturday 7:00 AM—6:30 PM,and Sunday 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM.For ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 19 ICity of San Luis Obispo Final Report other areas in the county, service is provided Monday through Saturday, 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. The one-way passenger fare for the paratransit service is $4.00 plus 25¢ for each service area ' zone crossed during a one-way trip. The extent of each service zone is detailed in Table 1-7, below. Runabout service is available to individuals with a disability or health-related condition such that they: • cannot independently board,ride and/or disembark from the fixed-route bus network or • Are unable to utilize the fixed-route network because they cannot get to or from a boarding or disembarking location. Runabout also transports non-ADA certified passengers,but will not guarantee these passengers a reservation until 2:00 PM the day before the scheduled trip. The service area zones for Runabout are listed below. ' Table 1-7 Runabout Service Area Zones ":`S w.�Ni, r"t? ,';a;3%'°e §k "'"v+..L,TEy �. Ay�'.t✓� aurF,E,.�°i' ' t. g� Z.,k:4rr4 South County,Morro Bay,Cuesta-b -the-Sea ' San Miguel,Paso Robles,Templeton,Atascadero,Santa Margarita Ni omo Arroyo Grande Grover Beach,Pismo Beach Los Osos Baywood Park ' San Simeon,Cambria,Ca cos,Morro Bay, Los Osos ' In order to use Runabout, all passengers must call ahead to make reservations. Reservations can be made up to 14 days in advance and Runabout attempts to accommodate same day trip requests, although they are not guaranteed. Runabout also requires at least a three-hour notice for ' cancellations. If a passenger provides less than three-hour notice on cancellations, the dispatcher records the trip as a late cancellation. Passengers who do not cancel a trip and are not present at the scheduled pick-up time/place are noted as `no shows" on the driver's log. Passengers who ' accumulate three "no shows" or late cancellations in a thirty day period receive a letter from Runabout informing them of this situation and about the system's"no show"and late cancellation policy. Under this policy, these passengers are monitored and if they accumulate two additional "no shows" or late cancellations within sixty days their Runabout service privileges will be suspended for a period not to exceed thirty days. ' 1.12 Passenger Amenities Throughout the transit network passengers benefit from a variety of amenities, including bus stop ' signs,transit shelters and benches. Chapter 4 presents a comprehensive inventory of the amenities and characteristics of each bus stop in San Luis Obispo Transit's network of services. IShort Range Transit Plan Page 20 I City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1.13 Other Transportation Providers There are a variety of public transportation providers operating within San Luis Obispo Transit's service area. Following is a brief description of the service provided by each operator: tSan Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA)—Regional fixed-route transit services are provided throughout much of San Luis Obispo County by SLORTA, an agency created through a joint powers agreement between San Luis Obispo County and the seven incorporated cities within the county. SLORTA operates two separate fixed-route transit systems in San Luis Obispo County, the Central Coast Area Transit (CCAT) and South County Area Transit (SCAT). Of these two systems, CCAT is the only service operating within the City of San Luis Obispo. In fact, five of CCAT's six routes serve the City of San Luis Obispo.In addition to serving the City of San Luis Obispo, CCAT provides transit service to the cities of Morro Bay, Atascadero, ' Templeton, Paso Robles, San Miguel, Santa Margarita, San Simeon, Los Osos, and the Five Cities area in the southern part of the county. CCAT operates all routes during the week with. limited service on Saturday.There is no CCAT service on Sundays or major holidays. Amtrak — Amtrak provides both rail and Thruway bus service to San Luis Obispo from the Amtrak train depot on Santa Rosa Street. Limited rail service on the Pacific Surfliner and Coast ' Starlight connects San Luis Obispo with destinations to the north and south. Cal Poly Late Night Escort Service — Cal Poly operates nighttime van escort service for the ' university community.The shuttle service,operated by University Police,is available to Cal Poly students, staff and faculty between dusk and midnight, Sunday through Thursday during the academic year. The Campus Escort van driver transports eligible passengers to requested ' destinations, up to '/z mile off the Cal Poly campus. The shuttles operate on one-hour headways and serve three different locations on campus:the University Union,the Kennedy Library and the Business Building. Ride On—Ride On provides a variety of shuttle services to individuals and companies within the City and County of San Luis Obispo. The organization's mission is "to provide affordable ' transportation to the people and employers of San Luis Obispo County". The available services focus on reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicles and improving access to social services. Shuttles provide services to locations such as the airport and medical facilities within the City of San Luis Obispo and to various groups such as seniors, participating companies' employees and their children, and area visitors. Ride On also organizes vanpools for individuals who live and work in proximity to each other. In addition to the public services described above, there are multiple taxi, limousine, and bus charter companies operating in San Luis Obispo. Greyhound Bus Lines also has multiple buses serving passengers traveling between San Joaquin Valley, San Francisco, or Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo. Short Range Transit Plan Page 21 I ' City or San Luis Obispo Final Report ' CHAPTER TWO ' OPERATING AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE This chapter summarizes San Luis Obispo Transit's operating and financial data for the most ' recent fiscal years. For clarification, the notation "FY 2002" and "FY 2001-02" both refer to the fiscal year that spans from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. The operating and financial data are intended to provide a picture of the system's current condition and past performance, and will act ' as a basis for all future service recommendations. 2.1 Key Operating and Financial Statistics ' Table 2-1 summarizes the key operating statistics for individual San Luis Obispo Transit routes during FY 2001. Routes 3, 4,and 5 were the most heavily used, accumulating the highest annual ' ridership, while Routes 5 and 6 were the most efficient routes in terms of passengers per vehicle hour. The following routes were above the system average of 24.3 passengers per hour. Routes 1, 5, and 6. Routes 3 and 4 were only slightly below the system average. The least efficient routes ' were Route 2, the Trolley, and the system-wide tandem, but only the tandem performed significantly below the system average. Average performance in terms of passengers per revenue vehicle mile was 2.3. Performing above this average were Routes 5, 6,the system-wide tandem, ' and the trolley.Routes 2 and 3 were the only routes performing significantly below average. It is interesting to note that Route 6 performs significantly better than Route 2 even though they ' both follow similar paths and Route 2 provides more service. All things considered, the data presented in Table 2-1 suggests that San Luis Obispo Transit does not have any regular routes ' performing poorly. In terms of system performance, San Luis Obispo Transit is performing better than peer systems. Some peer systems and their corresponding number of trips per revenue mile are as follows: Santa Maria Area Transit (1.85), Livermore/Amador Valley Transportation ' Authority (1.16)and Western Contra Costa Transit Authority(1.21). Table 2-1 San Luis Obispo Transit Operating Statistics by Route/Service,FY 2001 ' Route Passengers Revenue Passengers per Revenue Passengers per Vehicle Hours Vehicle Hour Vehicle Miles Vehicle Mile Route 1 107,956 4,346 24.8 48,949 2.2 ' Route 2 107,267 5,518 19.4 67,091 1.6 Route 3 127,193 5,309 24.0 66,051 1.9 ' Route 4 208,473 9,085 22.9 96,145 2.2 Route 5 239,222 8,669 27.6 89,823 2.7 Route 6 108,761 3,160 34.4 34 876 3.1 ' System-Wide Tandem 5,383 856 6.3 1,811 3.0 Trolley 47,610 2,171 21.9 12,350 3.9 System Totals 951,865 39,114 24.3 417,096 2.3 I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 22 I 1 Citv of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' 2.1.1 Annual System Miles and Hours ' Other relevant operating statistics for San Luis Obispo Transit are presented in Table 2-2. During the 363 operating days in fiscal year 2002, passengers made 721,919 trips, covering 394,674 ' miles, and taking 36,599 hours.Eleven buses provided peak hour service during this time period. Table 2-2 San Luis Obispo Transit Operating Statistics,FY 2002 ' Operating Charaeteristies Total Unlinked Passenger Tris 721,466 Revenue Vehicle Miles 394,674 ' Revenue Vehicle Hours 36,599 Operating Days 363 Peak Fixed Route Vehicles 11 ' Source:NTD Submission,FY 2002. ' 2.1.2 System Expenses,Revenues,and Net Cost In FY 2002, San Luis Obispo Transit's total expenses were $1,853,000. The transit agency ' recovered $370,500 in passenger fares during this period (refer to section 2.1.3 for additional detail), which resulted in a net annual cost of$1,482,500. Table 2-3 details FY 2002 expenses on a line-by-line basis. Greater than eighty percent of San Luis Obispo Transit's budget goes ' towards the provision of transportation services, which includes salaries and benefits for bus drivers, dispatchers, and supervisors. It is interesting to note that supplies and maintenance costs account for less than one percent of San Luis Obispo Transit's expenses, while salaries, wages, ' and administrative costs account for the remaining nineteen percent of total expenses. These expenses are illustrated in Figure 2-1. ' Table 2-3 San Luis Obispo Transit Expenses,FY 2002 E nses Amount ' Transportation Services $1,498,300 Supplies and Maintenance $5,900 Salaries and Wages $78,000 ' General and Administrative $270,800 Total Expenses $1,853,000 Source: San Luis Obispo, Transportation Development Act Funds Report and Financial Statements, Years ' Ended June 30, 2002 and 2001. I IShort Range Transit Plan Page 23 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 Figure 2-1 Operating Expenses, FY 2002 1 4.2% r0.3% 1 14.6% 1 ❑ Transportation Services 1 ❑ General and Administrative ❑ Salaries and Wages 1 180.9% ❑ Supplies and Maintenance 1 1 2.1.3 Revenue Sources 1 Table 2-4 lists San Luis Obispo Transit's sources of operating revenue. Included in these sources are federal and state operating assistance and passenger fares. Figure 2-2 presents each of the system's operating revenues as a proportion of total revenues. Because San Luis Obispo Transit 1 claims the maximum TDA grant allowable, they usually have surplus revenue at the end of the fiscal year that is carried over to the next fiscal year for use in the following quarter. This explains the discrepancy between the revenues and expenses in FY 2002. 1 Table 2-4 San Luis Obispo Transit Revenue,FY 2002 Rev _—ource_— --- – -- ----- --_-_Am..___ount._.-_._. .-__ -- ._.._,._ . enue S ----A-,—ih'6--u-n-t,-_ _ - 1 TDA Funds $1,074,685 FTA Operating Assistance $657,000 1 Passenger Fares $370,500 Total $2,1029185 Source: Austin O'Dell,Transit Manager. Farebox Revenue and Apportionment Trends. t I I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 24 I ' City orSan Luis Obispo Final Report Figure 2-2 Operating Revenue, FY 2002 18% 1 1 [I TDA Funds 1 i 51% ❑FTA Operating Assistance ❑Passenger Fares I 1 31% r 1 1 Passenger fares cited above include an annual contribution from Cal Poly that gives students, faculty, and staff unlimited access to bus services if they have valid Cal Poly identification. Table 1 2-5 lists the past and projected contributions from Cal Poly to San Luis Obispo Transit and Figure 2-3 displays this information graphically. 1 The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides two major sources of funding to subsidize public transportation throughout the State of California — the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance Program (STA). 1 LTF revenues are generated through 0.25% of the total 7.25% sales tax collected in California. The State Board of Equalization returns this money to each county according to the amount of tax ' collected in that county. In contrast, STA funds are generated by the state sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuels. The collected monies are appropriated to the Controller who then allocates them to the operators. Half of the funds are allocated by population and the other half is allocated according to the operator's previous year's revenue. Table 2-5 Cal Poly Annual Contributions,FY 1998-2006 ' Fiscal.Year_ Past Contribution____Fiscal Year _Future Contribution 1998 $169,000 2003 $246,722 1999 $174,600 2004 $254,124 ' 2000 $182,100 2005 $261,748 2001 $187,900 2006 $269,600 2002 $239,536 2007 TBD IShort Range Transit Plan Page 25 I 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 Figure 2-3 Cal Poly Annual Contributions,FY 1998-2006 1 $300,000 c $250,000 1 $200,000 c 1 j $150,000 - Past Contributions Future Contributions a $100,000 - 1 U $50,000 - 1 $o - - 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal Year 1 2.2 System Trends This section examines the operating and financial indicators used to measure efficiency over a 1 five-year time period, from FY 1997 to FY 2002. This historical evaluation can identify trends in system performance,as well as determine the causes of performance fluctuations. 1 2.2.1 Financial Trends Table 2-6 lists the operating expenses and the major revenue sources for San Luis Obispo Transit 1 between the years 1997 and 2002. Trends in these data are displayed graphically in Figure 2-4. Overall revenues and expenses increased during this period, although there was a fair amount of variation among different revenue sources. Passenger fares have increased by an average 7% a year, with the largest increase between FY 2000 and FY 2001. Federal operating assistance was ' actually decreasing for most of this 5-year period, but a dramatic increase(78%) in FY 2000 took funding levels above the FY 1997 rate. FTA operating assistance revenues have continued to increase in FY 2001 and FY 2002, with annual increases of 5.0 percent and 6.4 percent ' respectively. Fluctuations in TDA funding (LTF and STA) has been greater, particularly in recent years as TDA funds decreased by 13.8 percent between FY 2000 and FY 2001 and then increased by 46.3 percent between FY 2001 and FY 2002. Annual operating expenses have closely I mirrored the fluctuations in TDA funding revenue. The most significant recent increases in operating expenses occurred between FY 1999 and FY 2000 (26.0 %) and between FY 2001 and FY 2002 (14.2%). A component of the increase between FY 2001 and FY 2002 was due to the ' change in service operators. First Transit replaced Laidlaw as the system operator in July 2001. In IShort Range Transit Plan Page 26 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report terms of relative contributions, passenger fares consistently cover 20-25% of the operating expenses, federal funds cover 25-35%, and state funds cover the remaining 45-50%. Table 2-6 San Luis Obispo Transit Expense and Revenue Trends, FY 1997-2002 - . 998 .-_._.1998 _ 1999_ 2000_ _ 2001 2002 Passen er Fares $308,800 $317,000 $310,500 1 $327,100 $399,500 $370,500 FTA Operating Assistance $455,000 $364,900 $330,000 $588,300 1 $617,700 $657,000 Transportation Development Act(TDA)Apportionments LTF $872,310 $863,509 $946,555 $1,138,595 $1,167,996 $1,338,301 1 STA $57,630 $59,851 $59,465 $43,442 $56,692 $107,605 Less City Contributions* $286,161) ($324,121) ($326,505) ($329,759) ($490,045) ($371,221) Available TDA $643,779 $599,239 $679,515 $852,278 $734,643 $1,074,685 Total Operating Revenues $1,407,579 $1,281,139 $1320,015 [$19697,600 $1,767,678 $1,751,843 $2,102,185 Annual Operating Ea enses $1 32,700 $1,229,800 $1,347,600 $1,622,500 $1,853,000 'Contributions from the city include:Article 4 SLORTA,Article 3 Bikeway/Pedestrian,and TDA match. Source:City of San Luis Obispo,Farebox Revenue and Apportionment Trends. ' Figure 24 San Luis Obispo Transit Financial Trends, FY 1997-FY 2002 1 $2,000,000 /--------- -------- $ I ,600,000 - - ' $1,400,000 $1,200,000 -� $1 ,000,000 -- $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 Transportation Development Act $0 - 1 1997 1998 1999 Passenger Fares 2000 2001 2002 IOver this time period the farebox recovery ratio, the revenue collected from fares divided by operating expenses, has varied as well. The variation in the farebox recovery ratio reflects fluctuations in annual passenger ridership figures(refer to Section 2.2.2 for further discussion), as ' well as the changes in annual operating expenses discussed previously. The farebox recovery Short Range Transit Plan Page 27 I I 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ratio has consistently been between 20 and 26 percent between FY 1997 and FY 2002. It should be noted that the minimum farebox recovery ratio, as required by TDA, is 20 percent. The farebox recovery ratio for the last six years is presented in Figure 2-5. Figure 2-5 Farebox Recovery Ratio, FY 1997—FY 2002 30% 1 26% 25% 25% 23% p" 23% _ ' 20% 200/c as 20% 15% - _ 10% - L w 5% --- --- ----- 1 0% 7 -- -- --- - — - -- 7 - 1997 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Fiscal Year 2.2.2 Operating Trends Table 2-7 summarizes the core operating statistics for San Luis Obispo Transit between FY 1997 and FY 2002. Over the past six years, San Luis Obispo Transit has increased its service hours by 26 percent. However, this obscures the fact that there was a decrease in revenue vehicle hours between FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002 corresponding to the discontinuation of the pilot late evening service. The revenue miles follow a similar trend, with an overall increase of 25 percent between FY 1997 and FY 2002 and a peak in FY 2000. Annual ridership trends also mirror the trends in vehicle revenue miles and hours, increasing 26.4 percent between FY 1998 and FY 2000 before experiencing a precipitous decline in ridership of 31.1 percent between FY 2000 and FY ' 2002. The decrease in annual unlinked passenger trips between FY 2000 and FY 2002 is likely the 1 result of multiple factors, some of which are related to changes in San Luis Obispo Transit service and others of which are external to the transit system. Internal variables include the following four issues: the transit system signed a contract with a new operator in July 2001, routes were restructured, evening service ended and schedules changed. The transit system experienced a decline in ridership during the transitional period when First Transit began providing service, partly due to the termination of evening service at that time. Furthermore, as the transit system switched from the clock-face headway/pulse system to the current schedule, it Short Range Transit Plan Page 28 I I ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' became more difficult for new and occasional passengers to use the transit system. Additionally, transfers became less desirable because the wait between getting off one bus and getting onto ' another took longer. Since passengers are counted each time they board a bus, if the number of passengers transferring between routes decreases, it results in an overall decrease in system ' ridership even though the same number of individuals may still be using the system. It should also be noted that San Luis Obispo Transit made the transition to using GFI fare boxes June 2002, which means that FY 2003 counts may vary due to a new passenger counting methodology. ' External variables affecting ridership trends may include local factors, such as development patterns and the new parking garage at Cal Poly (completed in Fall 2000), as well as state and ' national issues, such as the current recession and the effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. After years of increasing ridership through the late 1990s, many transit systems have experienced a declining ridership trend recently, which appears to be due to the current state of the economy ' and the threat of terrorism. When people are out of work or concerned about potential terrorist attacks, they are less likely to take transit. These concerns may not be as prevalent in San Luis Obispo, but they have certainly impacted national trends in transit ridership and have likely had ' some affect in San Luis Obispo as well. Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7 show San Luis Obispo Transit's trends in vehicle hours, vehicle miles ' and ridership from FY 1997 through FY 2002. Table 2-7 San Luis Obispo Transit Operating Statistics,FY 1997—2002 ' Annual Operating Percent Statistics 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Change* ' Unlinked Passenger Tris 999,861 828,622 899,778 1,047,054 951,865 721,466 -13% Vehicle Revenue Miles 318,967 316,272 316,416 502 086 417,095 394,674 25% Vehicle Revenue Hours 28,951 29,011 30,582 44,079 39,114 36,599 26% t *Percent change between FY 1997 and FY 2002. Source.San Luis Obispo TDA Claim Forms, 1997-2002. 1 I I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 29 I 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Figure 2-6 San Luis Obispo Transit Annual Vehicle Hours,FY 1997-2002 1 50,000 _ - 45,000 - - --- --- --— - - -- -- - -- - i 40,000 35,000 - - - - - 30,000 - -- 25,000 - - - - 20,000 - - - C 15,000 - - - dC 10,000 _. 5,000 - - - - -- 0 -- --- -- --- 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 ' Fiscal Year Figure 2-7 Annual Ridership& Vehicle Revenue Miles,FY 1997-2002 t1,200,000 - - 600,000 ' 1,000,000 - 500,000 800,000 _ - - 400,000 L 600,000 - 300,000 F 1 400,000 200,000 200,000 100,000 1 0 -- - - - _ _ -- - - 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1 Fiscal Year ' —Unlinked Passenger Trips —Vehicle Revenue Miles ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 30 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report CHAPTER THREE ' ON-BOARD SURVEY RESULTS During the week of May 13-19, 2002,the consulting team conducted on-board surveys in order to ' better understand the needs and characteristics of the current San Luis Obispo Transit passengers. In the survey, respondents were asked for basic demographic information, details about their trip, satisfaction with the service, and interest in service expansions. This chapter discusses the results ' of the on-board survey. 3.1 Survey Methodology ' Based upon conversations with San Luis Obispo Transit staff, a sampling plan was developed for the on-board surveys. In order to collect a sample that was representative of each route, a ' surveyor was put on each San Luis Obispo Transit route throughout its span of service.For routes operating with only one vehicle (Route 1, 3, 6 and the Downtown Trolley), all runs throughout the day were surveyed. For routes operating with two vehicles (Route 2, 4, and 5), every other ' bus run was surveyed over the course of the day. This sampling approach best maximized project resources! ' In order to capture variation in the characteristics or behavior of passengers, the survey team conducted surveys during the week, as well as on Saturday and Sunday. Of the completed surveys, 68% were from weekday passengers, 17% from Saturday passengers, and 14% from ' Sunday passengers. Survey work was not performed on a Monday or Friday, as historic ridership trends indicate that these days are not representative of typical weekday ridership. To improve the response rate, Spanish language versions of the survey instrument were available to those who ' requested it(5%of the surveys were completed in Spanish). 3.1.1 Sampling Rates ' For the purposes of this on-board survey, sampling rates are defined as the percentage of daily ' San Luis Obispo Transit ridership that received the survey. System wide and route specific sampling.rates were calculated to provide the range in sampling rates for the project. The average sampling rate for the survey was 29%. The lowest sampling rate was 13%, for Route 2 on ' Sunday, and the highest sampling rate was 61%, for Route 5 on Saturday. Table 3-1 presents all of the sampling rates. I I The number of responses collected from each route is not proportional to the daily ridership on each route. ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 31 1 ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Table 3-1 Sampling Rates from On-board Transit Survey 1 38% N/A N/A 2 28% 18% 13% ' 3 40% 21% 30% 4 27% 49% 35% 5 28% 61% 51% ' 6 56% N/A N/A Downtown Trolley 25% 15% 43% ' 3.1.2 Response Rates ' In contrast to sampling rates, response rates indicate how many passengers completed the survey form compared to how many received the survey.The average response rate was 84%,although it varied by route. This is an incredibly high response rate, indicating that San Luis Obispo Transit passengers were particularly cooperative. 1 , 3.2 Survey Results ' 3.2.1 Affiliation with Cal Poly ' Over 20,000 people associated with Cal Poly live and/or work in San Luis Obispo. Approximately 18,000 of the Cal Poly population are students; as a group they tend to have socio-economic characteristics different from those of the city's general population. Knowing 1 what proportion of the survey respondents was students and understanding their characteristics will help explain the overall survey results. 1 Figure 3-1 illustrates that roughly half of the survey respondents are students at Cal Poly and very few faculty or staff were among those surveyed. As would be expected the income distributions for Cal Poly students, staff, and faculty are quite different (see Figure 3-2). Students generally ' have very low incomes - 86% of the student respondents live in households that earn less than $15,000 a year. The largest group of respondents (52%)is in households making less than$7,500 per year.Generally, Cal Poly staff has incomes on the lower end of the income scale.The most of the staff eams less than $7,500 per year, between $15,000 and $34,999, or between $35,000 and $49,999. Cal Poly faculty has the highest incomes, with over 90% of the respondents live in ' households earning over$50,000 per year.2 ' 2 Note that the income distributions for the faculty and staff aren't necessarily representative of these groups as a whole due to low sampling(21 staff responses and 14 faculty responses). ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 32 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Figure 3-1 Affiliation with Cal Poly Staff Faculty 2% 2% 1 No Affiliation 45% Student t 51% 3.2.2 Gender Of the passenger respondents men and women were represented in relatively equal proportions. The slight majority (54%) of men reflects that the majority of students (55%) and faculty (79%) at Cal Poly are male3 and that the university population is roughly 42% of the city's population. 3.2.3 Age ' The large student population in San Luis Obispo also dominates the age distribution of riders. As seen in Figure 3-3, almost half (48%) of the survey respondents are between 19 and 24 and 1 almost a quarter(23%)are between 25 and 44 years old. 1 1 3 Cal Poly 2001-2002 Fact Book °City of San Luis Obispo, Economic Development 2002 Short Range Transit Plan Page 33 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Figure 3-2 Total Household Income by Affiliation with Cal Poly 1 70% 60% - --- - - - --- -- - - ---- ---- 40% - 20% V _ i 10% — — - — 0o/p Under $7,500 to $15,000 to $35,0000 $50,000 to $75,000 or $7,500 $14,999 $34,999 to$49,999 $74,999 more ' Income Category ❑All Cal Poly Affiliates ❑Students ❑Staff❑Faculty I Figure 3-3 Age Distribution of Survey Respondents 60 or over Under 14 14-18 1 8% I 1% 8% 45-59 12% 25-44 19-24 23% 48% 3.2.4 Income IRoughly two-thirds of the respondents reported household incomes below $15,000. Although low-income residents tend to be overrepresented on local buses, this overwhelming percentage is I more likely due to the high ridership from Cal Poly students. Figure 3-4 shows an inverse relationship between the proportion of transit riders and income. That is, the proportion of riders decreases as income increases (for incomes up to $50,000). After $50,000 there is a gradual ' increase in the percent of respondents with increasing income. Short Range Transit Plan Page 34 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 ' Figure 3-4 Total Household Income 45% 40% d 35% — c 30% — --- -- --- — 20% 140/0 e 15% — 10% j% 8% _ 6 5% 0% ' Under $7,500 to $15,000 to $35,0000 to $50,000 to $75,000 or $7,500 $14,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 more Income Categories ' 3.2.5 Car Availability Passengers were asked a series of questions to gauge how dependent they are on the bus service ' and whether they could have used a personal vehicle for their trip. Of those surveyed 68% had a valid driver's license, but only 43% had a car available for making the trip. Table 3-2 shows the availability of a car for making a trip, given whether or not the respondent had a driver's license. ' As seen in the table, 40% of the respondents had a driver's license and an available car, but chose to take the bus instead of driving. These transit users are generally referred to as "choice riders" because they have an alternative to riding the bus. This finding suggests that riding San Luis ' Obispo Transit is preferred to driving for many of its passengers. The cost and limited amount of parking on the Cal Poly campus and in downtown are two additional explanations for why riders are choosing transit over driving. In contrast to these choice riders, 29% of the respondents are ' "transit dependent"because they didn't have the option of driving. Table 3-2 Automobile Availability -Car.Availability_ No Car Car Available ' No License 29% 2% Driver's License 29% 40% ' Respondents were also asked how many vehicles their household owns. As shown in Figure 3-5, the most common response was none (30%), followed closely by 1 (25%), 3 or more (23%), and 2 (22%). IShort Range Transit Plan Page 35 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Figure 3-5 Household Vehicle Ownership Two ' 22% — - None 31 Three or more 23% One 25% f 33 Transit Use Characteristics ' 3.3.1 Access Mode Respondents were asked how they reached the bus stop. The overwhelming majority (86%) of f respondents walked to the bus stop. Four percent of respondents rode their bicycle to the bus stop. Combining transfers from all bus services (San Luis Obispo Transit and CCAT) adds up to roughly 5%.None of the other access modes were used for more than 4%of the trips. 1 Figure 3-6 Access Modes to Bus Stop Mobility Device 1% Other 1% ❑Walked CCAT bus ❑Bicycle 2% --_ [3Drove Walked SLO Transit Bus Wad_ 86lk ❑SLO Transit Bus 3% ❑CCAT bus I Drove ❑Other Drove ❑Mobility Device ' Bicycle 4% I Short Range Transit Plan Page 36 I ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' 33.2 Transfers ' Of the respondents who transferred from another bus, roughly two-thirds provided the route number for the bus.These connecting routes, and the number of responses, are presented in Table ' 3-3. As is evident from the table, there is no single route from which most respondents transferred Of the 37 responses, 20 (54%)were transferring from SLO routes and 17 (46%)were transferring from CCAT routes. ' Table 3-3 Routes Being Connected From R�onte CQnnectin��Flom "Kes.0 �nml SLO Route 2 6 SLO Route 5 5 ' CCAT Route 9 5 SLO Route 3 4 CCAT Route 7 4 CCAT Route 8 4 CCAT Route 10 3 SLO Route 1 2 ' SLO Route 6 2 SLO Route 4 1 ' CCAT Route 12 1 Total 37 ' Passengers were also asked if they were going to transfer to another bus, roughly 10% said that they were. Relatively few respondents provided the route number of the bus to which they were transferring. Table 3-4 lists the information that was provided, including the connecting bus ' routes and the corresponding number of responses. San Luis Obispo Transit Route 2 and Route 3 were the most frequently cited routes for transferring to by survey respondents. Of the 76 responses, 60(79%) were transferring to a SLO route and 16(21%)were transferring to a CCAT ' route. Table 3-4 Routes Being Connected To ' :Bus,Connec �`To � ,Rem'oases SLO Route 2 22 SLO Route 3 17 SLO Route 4 8 SLO Route 5 6 1 CCAT Route 8 6 CCAT Route 10 6 SLO Route 1 4 ' CCAT Route 9 3 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 37 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Bus Connectin" To Res ones. SLO Route 6 3 CCAT Route 7 1 Total 76 3.3.3 Frequency of Use Passengers were asked how often they ride San Luis Obispo Transit buses. Figure 3-7 presents the responses and reflects that a majority (66%) of the riders use transit regularly (3 or more days a week). Of those respondents reporting that it was their first time on San Luis Obispo Transit, most(61%)were riding the Downtown Trolley. Respondents were also asked how long they have been riding San Luis Obispo Transit. The results presented in Figure 3-8 show a roughly equal distribution of respondents among the different lengths of time. Of the Cal Poly students who responded to this question, the most common response was 6 months to 1 year(34%),for staff it was 5 or more years(48%), and for faculty it was 1 to 2 years ' (47%). In general, respondents who were affiliated with Cal Poly tend to ride the bus with greater frequency than respondents who aren't affiliated with the university. ' Figure 3-7 Frequency of Use 1 First Time 9% ' Less than 1 day/week 5+ 11% days/week 4 1-2 1% days/week 14% ' 3-4 days/week 25% Short Range Transit Plan Page 38 iCity of San Luis Obispo Final Report iFigure 3-8 Length of Use i i 34 years Less than 15% 6 months 25% i5 or more years 17% _ — -- i 6 months i to I year 1-2 years 23% 20% 1 1 3.3.4 Fare Media iRespondents were asked how they paid for their bus trip, whether it was with cash, a Cal Poly ID, a transfer, a monthly pass or if it was free. By far, the most common fare medium used was a Cal i Poly ID, but a significant proportion of the respondents paid cash fare. Figure 3-9 illustrates which fare media were used by respondents from the regular fixed routes (excluding the trolley). iFigure 3-9 Fare Media Monthly Pass Transfer ' 10% 1% Free 3% Cash ' 26% Cal Poly ID 60% Short Range Transit Plan Page 39 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report For those listing a cash fare, 78% paid the regular cash fare (75¢), 14% paid the senior cash fare ' (35¢), and 8% the disabled cash fare (35¢). Among the monthly passes, most were disabled passes (53%), followed by 27% using the senior pass,and 20% using the regular pass. Including results from the trolley, the proportion of free fares (12%) is very high given that only 5% of the riders are carried on the trolley. This can be explained in part by the survey methodology. The trolley was surveyed on a Thursday (day of the Farmer's Market) when trolley ' ridership is highest, which increased the number of surveys collected from the trolley. Consequently, the amount of surveys collected from the trolley was proportionally higher than its ridership. 3.3.5 Trip Purpose ' Figure 3-10 shows the purpose of the trip being made when the passenger was surveyed. School trips (to, from, or school related) are the most common trip purpose with 40% of the trips, followed by work (20%), recreation/social (15%), and shopping (13%). Individuals who listed ' more than one trip purpose were put in a category called"Multi-purpose". Figure 3-10 Trip Purpose Multi- Other purpose ulti- Otherpurpose 11% I% ' Shopping 13% School 40% ' Recreation/ Social Visit 15% 1 Work 20% 3.3.6 Origin-Destination Information ' Survey respondents were asked where they started (origin) and where they were going to end (destination)their trip. They were given the option of filling in an address, landmark, or the cross ' streets of the nearest intersection. Each response having complete origin and destination information was assigned an origin zone and a destination zone. Sixteen zones were overlaid on a ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 40 Citv of San Luis Obispo Final Report map of San Luis Obispo, as shown in Figure 3-11. The first 15 zones cover regions primarily within the City and parts of the County of San Luis Obispo, while the last zone includes other I peripheral locations. The zones are bordered by large arterials, freeways, or natural barriers and were chosen to capture major trip generators within the city and county. Table 3-5 lists some of the more common responses given as origins and destinations for each zone. Origin-destination information helps identify the largest trip generators and where people are traveling from to reach them. Common origin-destination pairs indicate which transportation corridors are the most heavily traveled and might warrant service improvements. Of the 1252 completed surveys only 861 had complete origin and destination information, a rate of 69%. The most common origin-destination pairs are listed in Table 3-6, below, along with the most popular San Luis Obispo Transit routes serving the pair. Due to the heavy ridership by Cal Poly affiliates,most of these pairs have either an origin or a destination at Cal Poly. It is also interesting to see the most popular origin-destination pairs for each route. Table 3-7 lists ' each San Luis Obispo Transit route with its most common origin-destination pair and how many respondents listed it. Route 3 is of note because the route itself does not connect its most popular origin-destination pair, Sinshiemer and South Higuera. This suggests that many, if not all of these ' passengers are connecting to a different route to get to their destination. The fact that the most common origin-destination pair for the Trolley is Downtown-Monterey suggests that there is heavy ridership on Thursday evenings, which is the only time that the Trolley extends into the Monterey neighborhood. Short Range Transit Plan Page 41 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Figure 3-11 San Luis Obispo Service Area Zone Ma �Noit `FooCa' of thills Y 1 OutsideService Area ..C�-, �G rand Ave: S. Foothill U Qonterey,, ' SLO Downtown General LOVR ' ,, Amtrak Madonna E South 8 Sin§heimer an i ue�a --- _ Farm _9 1 Short Range Transit Plan Page 42 1 ICity of San Luis Obispo Final Report Table 3-5 Common Attractions by Zone - ac�r'�°YZ4negy-u�e +' �.North Foothill University Square, Foothill at Cuesta, North Chorro, F Tassa ara ' Cal Poly Cal Poly, Sterner Glen, Mott Gym, Mustang Village, On-campus- dorms West Los Osos Descanso/Los Osos Valley Road, Madonna Plaza, Los Osos Valle Valley Road Road/Madonna,Laguria.Middle School,Longs Drugs South Foothill Valencia Apartments,Foothill at La Entrada,Chorro, Santa Rosa Grand Avenue Grand/Loomis,California/Foothill ' Monterey Garfield Arms Apartments, Mill at California, Johnson and Gran AbbottJGrand, local hotels Downtown City Hall, Courthouse, Mission Madonna Madonna Plaza,Promenade,Post Office South&Broad Foster's Freeze Broad/South ' Amtrak Amtrak Station,Buchon/Santa Rosa, Scolaris Market;Alano Club SLO General General Hospital,French Hospital Sinshiemer Staples,.Orcutt at Broad,.Johnson,and Laurel South Higuera Chumash Village, Department of Motor Vehicles, Prado/South I-liguera,.PradoDa _Center Tribune Tank Farm Marigold Center,Broo ine/Tank Farm Road Airport Airport Beyond Service Area Morro Bay,Paso Robles,Arroyo Grande,Cuesta College Table 3-6 Most Common Origin-Destination.Pairs ' t O n:Destinahon`?Par �NIImber�4l�R' nsss,, Prima .>Routes; South Foothill 78 4,6 to Cal Poly Montereyto Cal Poly 60 2,5 Cal Poly to Downtown 45 4,3 Monterey to Monterey 43 . 3,6 Monterey to Downtown 33 Trolley Cal Poly to Monterey 29 3 4 ' Downtown to Cal Poly 27 5,2 North Foothilll 26 4,6 to Cal Poly i Short Range Transit Plan Page 43 I City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Table 3-7 Most Common Origin-Destination Pair by Route Route On in-Destination Pair _--- I Sinshiemer to Cal Poly =8 2 Monterey to Cal Poly =35 ' 3 Sinshiemer to South Hi uera =15 4 South Foothill to Cal Poly =38 5 Monterey to Cal Poly =25 6 South Foothill to Cal Poly =37 Trolley Monterey to Downtown =24 ' 3.4 Passenger Satisfaction/Attitudes 3.4.1 Service Ratings Survey respondents were asked to rate the quality of the transit service and if they would be ' interested in various service expansions. As illustrated by Figure 3-12, there was an overwhelmingly positive rating of San Luis Obispo Transit service, with 82% of the respondents rating the service as excellent or good. The ratings were consistent across weekdays and weekends in spite of the reduced service on the weekend. However, there is variation in ratings among the routes. Figure 3-13 presents the ratings by route. Figure 3-12 San Luis Obispo Transit Service Ratings ' Poor Fair 3% 15% - Good ' 48% Excellent 34% Short Range Transit Plan Page 44 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Figure 3-13 Service Ratings by Route 100% 90% 1 y 80% c 70% u 60% ❑Poor 0 50% ❑Fair 0 ❑Good 40% 30% — ❑Excellent a' 20% 10% 0% - - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 Trolley SLO Transit Route ' Overall, the Trolley received the highest rating. Routes 2, 4, and 5 had similarly good ratings while Routes I and 3 had higher incidences of fair or poor ratings. A probable explanation for these ratings is the differences in headways; long headways got poor ratings and shorter headways got better ratings. Among the routes, the Trolley, Route 2, Route 4, and Route 5 all have headways less than 45 minutes. In contrast, the headways for:Route 1, Route 3, and Route 6 are all over I hour. ' 3.4.2 Desired Improvements ' Riders were then asked how likely they would be to use various additional services/improvements to the existing service. Improvement options were evening service, more frequent service, more weekend service, and express service. As shown in Figure 3-14, there is strong interest in all of these service improvements. Of those who responded to these questions, the most popular improvements were evening service and more frequent service. Evening service had the highest percentage (67%) of "Very Likely" responses. The less popular improvements were more weekend service and express service. As would be expected, transit-dependent respondents were more likely to answer very likely than choice-riders to the service improvements. Short Range Transit Plan Page 45 ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Figure 3-14 Likelihood of Using Service Improvements ❑Very Likely ❑Somewhat Likely ❑Not Likely 100% — - 90% - 80% 0% - 80% c 70% 4 60% 50% 40% d 30% u y 20% 10% 0% -, Evening Service More Frequent More Weekend Express Service ' Service Service Service Improvement The likelihood of using various service improvements was consistent across routes, with the following exceptions: • The interest in expanded service was very low for respondents on the Trolley. Given that tourists and infrequent transit users dominate the Trolley's ridership(83%of the respondents riding the Trolley were using San Luis Obispo,Transit for the first time or use transit less than 1 day a week)they would have little use for expanded service. o Riders from Route 3 were the most interested in expanded weekend service. ' • Riders from Route 6 were the least interested in expanded weekend service. Interest in service improvements varied somewhat by the respondent being affiliated with Cal Poly. For example, of those respondents not affiliated with the university, 64% were very likely to use weekend service compared to 36% for those affiliated with the university. The responses to express service were similar, but less dramatic (46% versus 37%). In the case of more evening service and more frequent service,respondents affiliated with Cal Poly answered very likely more often than those not affiliated with Cal Poly. 3.5 Passenger Profiles by Ridership Segment It is often useful to examine the characteristics of different sectors of the ridership population to identify needs or desires that might be particular to one group or another. Table 3-8 profiles the average passenger based on the survey responses for each route. In general, the average passenger for each of the six regular routes is quite similar. The largest deviations were seen in the profile for the average passenger on the Downtown Trolley. The following 1 differences are also noteworthy: Short Range Transit Plan Page 46 r CiN Final of Luis Obispo Report 1 , C Passengers on Route 3 are on average older and not affiliated with Cal Poly, C Passengers on Route 6 were on average not making a school or work related trip and had both a valid driver's license and a car available for the trip, r • Passengers on Route 1 gave the worst service ratings to San Luis Obispo Transit, • The likelihood of using more weekend or express service was inconsistent for almost all of the routes and as such,was not included in the profiles. rTable 3-9 profiles the average student respondent and the average non-student respondent. This table outlines the most common responses to the survey, creating a picture of the typical or r "dominant" characteristics for each ridership group. Table 3-9 is therefore not representative of all riders utilizing the San Luis Obispo Transit system,but should be considered as a "snap-shot" view of the typical transit passenger in San Luis Obispo.The defining characteristics of these two ' groups are as follows: • Students tend to be younger(19-24),have more cars, are choice-riders, have been riding ' San Luis Obispo Transit between 6 months and 2 years, are going to or from school, and prefer to pay for increased service with an increase in the ASI contribution. • Non-students tend to be older (25-59), are not affiliated with Cal Poly, have one car or less, make less than $35,000, are transit-dependent, have been riding San Luis Obispo Transit for less than 6 months or more than 5 years, are making a work, recreation or other trip, and prefer to fiord increased service with an increase in the general fare. 1 1 I 1 1 r r r rShort Range Transit Plan Page 47 r 1 Y. Y 00 e p, iv G 7 On > e a C 8 _ T 8 `o >. >, n ecc h d N N O p ai .s1C N En N � ci ' fA o Y 'F co 3 lei Ok dgza N m W LT. ' U — co � p Y Vg :J S u o 1 6 z° 3 n m = 1 ° U o. ' o y °q w cm co O Z E 5 UCD CD Q • �. t � > b � � � � f y O O � I City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 Table 3-9 Dominant Passenger Profiles of Students and Non-Students Student . d, < , , Non Studeatye ' Sample Size,N 571 582 Passenger Profik ' Male 56% Male 52% Gender Female 44% Female 48% Age 19-24 25-59 Cal Poly Affiliation Student No Cal Poly Affiliation Household Income Under$7,500 Under$35,000 Number of Cars in Household 1 or 3+ 0 or 1 ' Car Available for Trip Yes No Valid Driver's License Yes No Transit Use Characteristics Access Mode Walking Walking Transferring to Another Route No No Frequency of Transit Use 3+days/week 3+days/week Length of Use 6 months-2 years <6 months or 5+years t Fare Media Cal Poly ID Regular Cash Fare or Free ' Trip Purpose To or From School To Work,Recreation or Social Visit,or Other Service I rovements/Ratin s Service Rating Good Excellent or Good Likelihood of Using Evening Service Very Likely Very Likely Likelihood of Using More Frequent Service Very Likely Very or Somewhat . Likely Likelihood of Using More Weekend Service Not or Very Likely Very or Somewhat Likely ' Likelihood of Using Express Service Somewhat or Very Very or Not Likely Likely Short Range Transit Plan Page 49 I 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 CHAPTER FOUR SERVICE STOP FACILITIES INVENTORY The bus stop network is the public's main point of access to the San Luis Obispo Transit system. Therefore, it is important that a service stop master plan exists to address the needs of its riders. The first step in creating a service stop master plan was to inventory existing service stop conditions and policies. This chapter includes a detailed inventory of all San Luis Obispo Transit service stops and amenities, as well as an analysis of ridership activity each stop experiences. Specific capital modifications and.policy recommendations are presented in Chapter 5. 1 4.1 Policy Background The 1997 San Luis Obispo Transit SUP included several policies and procedures for the placement of bus turnouts and service stop improvements. A matrix was provided (see Table 41 below), which stipulates the facility standards once a service stop experiences certain ridership levels. Detailed requirements for the installation of bus tumouts were also included in the SRTP and are outlined below. The following policies were excerpted from the 1997 San Luis Obispo Transit'SRTP. "Bus stops and related facilities will be provided as follows: A. When required by the Transit Manager,developers of new real estate projects will install transit stops,turnouts and related facilities along street frontages that adjoin their project sites or at nearby locations that provide direct transit service to their projects. tB. In developed areas,the City will install bus stops,turnouts,and facilities. C. Facilities at bus stops will be installed as stipulated in Table 4-4 D. The design of transit shelters must be acceptable to the Transit Manager and the Community Development Director(or the director's designee). The city will install,or will require developers to install,bus turnouts when all of the following criteria are met: A. The turnout is to be located on an arterial street or highway/regional route as designated by the circulation element. B. The arterial street segment where the turnout is to be located is expected to carry more 1 than 10,000 vehicles per day and the level of service is LOS D or worse during the peak traffic period. C. The number of people expected to board the bus during peak traffic periods is 15 or more. D. D. The turnout is located close to an intersection with traffic signals where operation of the signals will provide sufficient gaps in the traffic for the bus to safely re-enter the flow of 1traffic.Preferred locations for turnouts are on the far sides of intersections. E. The turnout can be installed so that a stopped bus does not block a designated bike lane. 1 Short Range Transit Plan Page 50 1 f City of San Luis Obispo Final Report F. Constructing the turnout will not require removing buildings or significant geological or landscaped features. G. The design of the turnout meets the minimum standards. The Public Works Director(or the director's designee)may grant exceptions to these minimum standards when site conditions preclude strict compliance and all design objectives specified in this section can be met. ' Bus stops located along streets where parallel vehicle parking is allowed should be designed to permit people to directly board the bus from adjoining sidewalks as follows: ' A. The sidewalk should be extended to the edge of the parking bay. Or... B. At the ends of the blocks,parking should be removed to allow sufficient bus"queuing space"along the curb. Using the criteria detailed above,the Transportation Team will: A. Periodically evaluate existing bus stops. B. Identify bus stops where bus turnouts.queuing spaces along the curb,or bulbouts are warranted ' C. Establish priorities for installation of warranted improvements. The City will consider modifying the design or operation of intersections with traffic signals in ' order to help buses stay on schedule." ' San Luis Obispo Transit also used a facilities improvement matrix to determine what boarding levels warranted additional facilities. This matrix, Table 4-1, mandates that all service stops have at least a transit sign with departure times. Stops with 10 to 14 daily boardings are required to ' have a bench on the sidewalk or in the parkway, while stops with 14 or more daily boardings are required to be outfitted with a bench on a concrete pad, a shelter, trash containers, and night lighting. ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 51 I City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Table 4-11997 SRTP Facilities Improvement Matrix ' Stops with Fewer than Stops with 10 to 14 Stops with 15 or more Type of Improvement 10 Daily Boardinga Daffy Boardings Daily Boardings ' Transit sign with departure time X X X Bench on sidewalk or in parkway X (b) X ' Bench behind sidewalk on concrete ad plus a shelter (c) X ' Trash Container X Night Lighting X ' Notes: (a)To determine boardings at existing bus stops.refer to San Luis Obispo Transit policy 3.238.For new stops.the Transit Manager shall ' establish a method to forecast potential ridership. (b)A concrete pad should be provided in back of the sidewalk where there is no separate landscaped parkway that can accommodate a bench or where the sidewalk is less than 1.8 meters wide. ' (c)The Transit Manager may install or require installation of transit shelters in locations with fewer than 15 daily boardmgs when local climate conditions warrant protection from the weather. ' 4.2 Existing Service Stop Inventory The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) conducted a bus stop inventory in ' early 2000, detailing the existing facilities at all San Luis Obispo Transit bus stops. Additional information was gathered by MTC in spring 2002 and by San Luis Obispo Transit in the summer of 2002.These surveys verified the condition and availability of the following amenities: ' • Bus Stop Signs • Route Maps ' • Information Telephone Number • Number of Benches • Bench Condition ' • Shelters • Trash cans ' • Pay Phones • Bike Racks • Night Lighting ' • Sidewalk Accessibility • Obstacles • Stop Placement I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 52 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' The results of this inventory can be found in Appendix A. Overall, San Luis Obispo Transit has a ' very well equipped service stop network. Approximately 92% of the system's bus stop signs are in "Fair" or "Good" condition and 89% of all bus stops post an information phone number. In terms of other physical amenities, 53% of all stops have one or more benches and 25% are ' equipped with shelters. Of all San Luis Obispo Transit service stops, 81% are in a location with sidewalks and 87%are free of obstructions to the service stop. ' The service network is less equipped with non-essential amenities that improve the ease and comfort of rider's experience. Only 25% of all stops have a trash can, 9% have a payphone, and less than 1%are equipped with bike racks. ' The inventory also found that although well equipped overall, many service stops were not compliant with the facilities improvement policies from the 1997 SRTP. The inventory found that ' there were 41 service stops in San Luis Obispo Transit with 15 daily boardings or higher. Of these,only 21 (54%)were equipped with shelters, 17(41%)were equipped with trash containers, and 16 (39%) had night lighting. Given the poor compliance with the existing standards, it is ' necessary to revise its standards to reflect more realistic goals. The following sections address these issues and provide revised improvement policies and service stop classifications. ' Table 4-2 lists the percentage of stops with each amenity and rates the amenity,when appropriate. Table 4-2 San Luis Obispo Transit Service Stop Amenities ' fim `; ' 4% , 96•f° 8% 42% 46% a -1PItoH7HffillieCl` "' 11% 89% - 0% 16% 52% 75% 25% .... _ � ' can = 75% 25% 77 a S°F44 91% 9% 990/0 1% .1E3i16ie�el� ; ' 91% 9% . lalki�i ' 19% 81% 7" 87% 13% 1 20/0 96 400/6 33% 25% ' 43 Service Stop Activity Understanding the activity level at each stop facilitates matching investments in stop amenities ' with passenger demand.A list of which stops experience the heaviest use can be used to identify IShort Range Transit Plan Page 53 i City of San Luis Obispo Final Report deficiencies in the existing network and to prioritize areas for additional development or capital investment. Ridership counts were conducted stop-by-stop for the 2000 SLOCOG facilities inventory study and are used as a benchmark to create an "Activity Score" for each stop. Table 4-3 associates an activity score with different daily boardings. The categories correspond to the quintile segmentation of the daily boarding counts, that is to say that 20% of the stops have daily ' boardings of 0 to 6 persons, 20% have 7 to 15 persons, etc. Figure 4-1 graphs the activity scores for each stop on the existing route network.A list of each bus stop and its corresponding activity score can be found in Appendix B. Finally,Table 44 lists the service stops with the most activity ' and their corresponding number of daily boardings. Table 4-3 Activity Scoring Methodology 0to6 1 7 to 15 2 16 to 25 3 26 to 64 4 ' 65 or greater 5 ' Fourteen service stops within the San Luis Obispo Transit system have an activity score of 5 (daily ridership of 65 or more). These 14 stops account for nearly 70%of total boardings for the system. The highest activity stop is the downtown transfer facility at Osos and Palm, which ' logged 737 daily boardings. Three of the top five stops are found on the Cal Poly Campus (Mott Gymnasium, University Union, and the Graphic Arts Building). The remaining stops are clustered along the south edge of campus and along Grand Avenue to the east. None of the 14 ' most active stops were south of downtown, indicating that the majority of San Luis Obispo Transit's ridership activity is between downtown and the Cal Poly campus. It should be noted, however, that several service stops with an activity score of 4 had boardings just below the ' scoring cutoff of 65. In particular, the stop at Tassajara and Ramona Drive had 64 daily boardings, and several stops along Los Osos Valley Road had daily boardings of 40 or more. ' Table 44 Top 14 Service Stops by Number of Boardings ..St �'�Rk.t�`�k." Osos Palm(City Hall 737 Cal Poly Mott m 509 Cal Poly Univers' Union 383 ' Ramona Palomar Valencia A ts. 295 Cal Poly(Graphic Communications south 238 Grand Abbott 150 ' Cal Poly(Agriculture Building) 126 Mill Grand 115 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 54 1 StopLootion Foothill Chorro (Mobil Station) Cal Poly(Graphic Communications) Mill @-Johnson North Chorro • Foothill • Mill • 1 1 1 WR �1 G .a��s- W.7 ami .�� C= • a^ ��i4t_ _� "fit ,�\• • '_•1�i1•� '�{�?��•♦r i±•`�� ' ffw� fLTi:� ! y'�I��lsr� 1.•\`('. �,}, "i ��'�j\�.�.�'r'mit � � y.�>>'�"�'.:~ � �/ 'Y� i��k. ��>Va�• r \��' �1��`lyi.�Vis.. Ilv k. {� . Z'� off': . ., �•�.:� j'11't ,�M1 .� :• !.-03�" '��•^,��7�'1�.`�j1�(��.9b ,n .9�,r� It 2.`�'�. ®�.'l•.sti��2Y a. v a �.. �b3'•_ �/� "1v, •t .j � �>� ;b�Fr��'�'•''�'-a�y �rr �d� �..'.. IM' 44f \f . .w. 7ril/ a fa . frc{ (MID54dbm Rmft4yy� WE _ • ra•i ¢... 1 d wf^i�^ rJx��i �� I City of Son Luis Obispo Final Report 4.4 Conclusion ' This service stop inventory serves as a snapshot of existing service stop conditions and utilization. Overall, the City of San Luis Obispo has a very well equipped service stop network. ' The next step in creating a Service Stop Master Plan is to compare service stop activity with service stop ridership, to identify specific needs and make recommendations. These recommendations are explored in Chapter 5. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I Short Range Transit Plan Page 56 I City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 CHAPTER FIVE 1 RECOMN[ENDATIONS AND SERVICE PLAN This chapter starts with a discussion of the system-wide service issues to be addressed by San ' Luis Obispo Transit and follows with a presentation of the issues and opportunities for each route. The next section presents the recommended service changes(separated into short-,mid-and long- term recommendations) and a service implementation plan. Finally, recommendations stemming from the Service Stop Master Plan are presented. 5.1 System-wide Operational Issues Based on field reconnaissance and subsequent research performed for the study, several issues were identified that the City of San Luis Obispo transit should continue to monitor. San Luis ' Obispo Transit does a good job of covering major generators and population concentrations within the system's service area. Routes serving the northern areas of San Luis Obispo(including downtown and the Cal Poly campus)receive particularly heavy use. The major challenges facing. ' the system are improving ridership satisfaction on routes with long headways, evaluating the feasibility of providing evening service, evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of route duplication north of the downtown transfer center, and improving the effectiveness of connecting ' riders to desired destinations via routes from the southern part of the city. Of course, the transit system operates in a fiscally-constrained environment and each of these challenges must be addressed with this in[Hind. ' The on-board survey revealed that the routes with the lowest passenger service ratings were ' Routes 1 and 3.These are also the routes with the longest.headways(over 1 hour).Approximately 60% of all respondents on all routes indicated a desire for more frequent service; particularly on Routes 1, 2, and 5. Therefore, it is likely that decreasing the headway on Route 1 would result in ' increased ridership and higher levels of customer satisfaction. Section 5.3.1 discusses this recommendation in further detail. Other survey efforts have also been conducted in recent years, including a transportation survey of the general public by the Department of Public Works in ' May 2001. These survey efforts have revealed that only 20%of survey respondents currently ride the bus and that the transit system would have to provide more direct and frequent service in order to encourage more people to ride transit. ' Another issue raised in the survey was the desirability of extending transit service into the evening. In fact, nearly 70% of survey respondents over all routes indicated that they would be ' very likely to use evening service. Adding evening service appeared particularly important to Cal Poly students who are taking an increasing number of night classes.' It is expected that San Luis Obispo Transit should be able to meet the demand for evening transit service by providing service ' on a few transit routes. Reduced coverage evening service could attract additional ridership and ' 'Approximately 1,000 students are registered for classes offered between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM,according to one Cal Poly representative. Short Range Transit Plan Page 57 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report should be evaluated in terms of expected ridership versus expected costs. Section 5.3.1 provides additional discussion of this service recommendation. The downtown transfer center in front of City Hall serves all routes on the San Luis Obispo Transit system. There are several instances where routes duplicate service along Santa Rosa Street, Mill Street, Foothill Boulevard, and Grand Avenue on their way to the transit center. By having all routes travel these streets, SLO Transit provides better service to the.Cal Poly campus, Grand Avenue, and Foothill Boulevard corridors. This layout also minimizes wait times for riders taking short trips between northern zones that are not route specific. This configuration also minimizes the need for transfers for passengers traveling from outlying zones in the southwest or southeast. However, it may be possible to reduce the level of service duplication north of the transfer center,thereby reducing costs associated with this service provision,while still providing a high level of service to Cal Poly and the northern areas of San Luis Obispo. Finally, service coverage in the southern areas of San Luis Obispo has been maximized with the use of one-way loops running in opposite directions. This technique effectively increases the number of people who are within walking distance of a bus line. However, one-way loops do have certain disadvantages as well. For instance, a passenger who only needs to travel a short distance from their point of origin may end up traveling a much longer distance to arrive at his/her destination since the bus route makes a large loop.Furthermore,the transit catchment area for one-way loops is typically half that of routes with bi-directional service ('/s mile vs. '/a mile). Section 5.3.1 presents one service recommendation designed to improve the transit system's performance in this particular area. It is important to note that the optimal service design plan strikes the perfect balance between breadth of coverage and service frequency,and achieving this balance is the driving force behind the SRTP. The following recommendations and service implementation plan strike a balance between breadth of coverage and service frequency, while providing the best service possible given current revenues. 5.2 Route Level Issues and Opportunities This section examines each route in the San Luis Obispo Transit system and identifies issues and opportunities for them. It also analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of each route, and presents initial concepts for how routes and services might be enhanced. This section also sets forth service observations and opportunities for improvement. The following tasks were completed for each route: Diagnostic analysis and ranking Route reconnaissance Results from the on-board survey Origin-destination data Transfer rates and locations Expanded service Passenger profiles Short Range Transit Plan Page 58 J City of San Luis Obispo Final Report In general, service planning reflects the following broad goals: Provide the best possible service to the greatest number of people within available resources, Provide service that is clear,understandable,and direct, Serve major activity centers, Relate the amount of service to the demand for service. More detailed criteria for improving routes include the following principles: Minimize transfers, Reduce duplication, Streamline services, Maintain viable routes. These guidelines serve as the basis for identifying opportunities for route modifications. In turn, ' these opportunities will serve as the basis for short-term system changes and lay the foundation for the system's future growth. Route 1 Broad,Johnson/Cal Poly General Characteristics Route I consists of two one-way loops serving the northwestern and southeastern sections of San Luis Obispo. Major attractions on Route 1 include Cal Poly's Agriculture Building, Siena Vista Hospital, the Library, the County Government center, Staples, the Shelter, French Hospital, San Luis Obispo General Hospital and other medical facilities surrounding the French and Sierra Vista hospitals. However, it should be noted that the San Luis Obispo General Hospital may be closing in the near future, which would shift demand to other hospitals and clinics. Route 1 carries approximately 11% of overall annual ridership, running with slightly above average passengers per hour and slightly below average passengers per mile. ' Findings The most common origin — destination pairs on Route I were between North Foothill and Cal ' Poly, Cal Poly and North Foothill, and Sinshiemer and Cal Poly. Those riders that transferred from Route I did so primarily to Route 2 and to the Trolley.The highest percentage of passengers transferring to Route I came from Route 5. It is likely that most riders traveling from North ' Foothill to Cal Poly on this route are traveling to the Cal Poly Agriculture Building, as Route 1 does not directly serve the central part of the Cal Poly campus. Furthermore, there were no transfers to Routes 3 and 6, which do serve the Graphics Arts, University Union, and other stops ' on the main campus. Several issues were found with this route.First, riders west of the North Chono Street going to the Cal Poly Agriculture Building must wait I hour and 10 minutes between buses. This is very inconvenient, given North Foothill's proximity to the Cal Poly campus. Another issue is that ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 59 D City of San Luis Obispo Final Report riders traveling from Sinshiemer (8 riders) in the south are forced to transfer to Routes 2 or 5 to Dget to the main campus. OOnortunities D This route is current;y the only route directly serving the Highland Drive corridor of North Foothill. Route 1 also carries many passengers from the southeast to downtown and the northwest areas of San Luis Obispo. Although ridership figures from the 2000 SLOCOG bus stop inventory D indicate that the segment of Route I that traverses Highland Drive does not receive significant ridership, it does add a measure of breadth to San Luis Obispo's service coverage. The system should evaluate the importance of this segment in its overall service strategy. Section 5.3.1 presents the proposed service recommendation for Route 1 that will provide more efficient service to this area. Route 2 S.IiieueralCal Poly/Foothill General Characteristics D Route 2 serves the area north and southwest of downtown San Luis Obispo with one-way service. Major trip origins and destinations include: Cal Poly (Vista Grande, University Union, Graphic Arts), downtown, the Department of Motor Vehicles, Social Security and other major social D services, and the Day Center on Prado Road. Route 2 generates 11% of overall annual ridership, but ranked as the worst performing route in San Luis Obispo's network in terms of passengers per hour and passengers per mile. DFindings D The most common origin-destination pairs for Route 2 were between Monterey and Cal Poly, Cal Poly and South Foothill, and trips within South Foothill. Route 2 passengers transferred most commonly to the trolley and to and from Route 3. Route 2 carries a large portion of students (51% of Route 2 total ridership), and due to the transfer activity from Route 3, a significant Dportion of riders originate their trips in the Sinshiemer area and terminate their trips at the various social service agencies along South Higuera. One consequence of this travel pattern is that there are a significant number of forced transfers from Route 3 onto the southern portion of Route 2. Opportunities. D Suggested service changes include extending service along Los Osos Valley Road past Highway 101 to serve the new retail center at Auto Park Way. Page: 60 Any route modification should reevaluate the appropriateness of running the route along Highway D 101 between Los Osos Valley Road and Prado Road. The system should consider consolidating Routes 2 and 6 along this souther corridor for increased service frequency and more efficient service provision. Section 5.3.1 discusses this recommendation in greater detail. Short Range Transit Plan Page 60 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Airport/Cal Poly General.Characteristics Route 3 serves north and southeast San Luis Obispo with two one-way loops. The northern loop 1 serves Sierra Vista Hospital, downtown, and Cal Poly,while the southern loop provides access to French Hospital, San Luis Obispo General Hospital, Equal Employment Office, San Luis Obispo Airport, Staples, and Mission Plaza. This route accounts for over 13% of total annual ridership, 1 performing slightly above average in passengers per hour and slightly below average in passengers per mile.The low passengers per mile ranking is most likely due to the large deviation south of Orcutt Road,serving eastern Tank Farm Road and the San Luis Obispo Airport. 1 Findings The most common origin—destination pairs on Route 3 were from Sinshiemer to South Higuera, Cal Poly to Monterey, trips within Monterey, Cal Poly to Downtown, trips within Sinshiemer, and trips from Sinshiemer to Downtown. Route 3 experienced heavy transfers,mostly to Route 2, Route 4, and to CCAT Route 10. This information can be summarized in three broad travel tpatterns:. Trips are being made between the southeast and the social service corridor on South . Higuera,via a transfer downtown to Route 2, Trips are being made within the Cal Poly,Downtown,Monterey areas(mostly from Cal Poly and within Monterey),and Trips are being made from Sinshiemer to Downtown. This route has two distinct types of trips: long distance trips between the southeast and-southwest, and short distance trips within the southeast or the northeast. Short, niter-zone trips would be served better by more frequent service, but such service is made difficult by the long route and travel time required to serve all the areas covered by Route 3. The fact that Route 3 is only one- way south of Orcutt means that riders going to Broad Street from Augusta or Johnson Streets are forced to travel the entire loop south of Orcutt, via the airport, before they can get to their destination. Also, the trips between the southeast and southwest are difficult to serve directly because there is no cross street between Broad Street and South Higuera. This requires that the route travel north before heading south again, and the current route design forces a transfer to Route 2. OOnvortunities This route:is a solid performer and serves the above-mentioned purposes adequately.Nonetheless there is room for improvement. Future service changes should consider reducing long travel times by eliminating the loop south of Orcutt Road, by eliminating service to the airport altogether,or by increasing frequency to the norh of the transit center. Short Range Transit Plan Page 61 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Route 4 Madonn"aguna Lake/Cal Poly General Characteristics Route 4 is a one-way, clockwise loop that covers the northeast, north, south, and southwest parts of town. The route provides access to Cal Poly (Graphic Arts, Mott Gym, Vista Grande), downtown, the Senior Center, the Greyhound bus station, Madonna Plaza, the Promenade, the Post Office, Laguna Plaza, and University Square. Route 4 accounts for over 22% of annual system-wide ridership, ranking slightly below average on passenger per mile and passenger per hour ratings. This is due to the fact that Route 4 provides more hours and miles of service than any other route in the system. Findings The most common origin-destination pairs served by Route 4 are South Foothill and Cal Poly, Cal Poly and Downtown, Los Osos Valley Road(west)and Cal Poly, and North Foothill and Cal Poly. There were few transfers,but riders that transferred primarily did so to Route 5,traveling in the opposite directions. Opportunities Given the area that this route covers and the volume of passengers that it carries, Route 4 is an extremely strong route. The route serves several major trip generators in addition to providing transportation for Cal Poly students in the southwest and northwest parts of San Luis Obispo. Consequently, we recommend no changes to Route 4, although in response to public comments, future efforts should be made to get Route 4 to operate on hourly headways. Route 5 Cal Poly/LagHna LakeiMadonna General Characteristics Route 5 is very similar to Route 4, covering the northeast and southwest parts of town, except it operates along a counterclockwise loop. Major destinations include Cal Poly (University Union, Graphic Arts, Mustang Stadium, and Vista Grande), downtown, the Senior Center, the Amtrak station, the Greyhound bus "station, Madonna Plaza, the Promenade, the Post Office, Laguna ' Plaza,and University Square.Route 5 accounts for 25%percent of annual ridership and performs extremely well. Route 5 had the second highest passenger per hour ranking and an above average passenger per mile ranking. 1 Short Range Transit Plan Page 62 i City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Findings ' The most common trips originate in the east and southeast part of the city, traveling in a counterclockwise direction to and from Cal Poly. There is also a strong travel dynamic from Los Osos Valley Road to downtown. The most common origin-destination pairs were from Monterey to Cal Poly, Amtrak to Cal Poly, Los Osos Valley Road to Downtown, and Downtown to Cal Poly. Similar to Route 4, there were very few transfers. Those riders that did transfer did so to Route 2 and from Route 9(CCAT). Opportunities As with Route 4, it is recommend that no changes be made to Route 5 because it is performing well and carries a large percentage of the system's ridership. As with Route 4, future efforts should be made to get Route 5 operting on hourly headways in response to public comment. Route 6 South HizuerwToothill/Cal Poly General Characteristics Route 6 covers the area north and southwest of downtown. Major destinations include Cal Poly (Graphic Arts, Mott Gym, Vista Grande), Downtown, the Children's Museum, Food 4 Less, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and different social services along South Higuera. The route 1 carries 11% of annual system wide ridership, with the best passengers per hour rating and the second best passenger per mile rating. In the case of Route 6, it performs well in these measures because it has a relatively short route and a high average speed due to the portion of the route on 101. ' Findings The most common origin — destination pairs were between South Foothill and Cal Poly and within South Foothill. The highest amount of transfers were to and from Route 2. The most ' striking feature of this route is that a major leg of Route 6 travels along Highway 101 on its way south to Los Osos Valley Road and South Higuera. ' Omortunities Suggested service changes are intertwined with those suggested for Route 2, namely, extending service along.Los Osos Valley Road past Highway 101 to serve the commercial development . along Auto Park Way. Refer to Section 5.3.1 for this service recommendation. Downtown Trolley 1 General Characteristics The Trolley provides transit service in downtown San Luis Obispo. On Thursday evenings the Trolley extends its service to area hotels on Monterey to enable visitors to reach the weekly Fanners' Market. In addition to the hotels on Monterey and the Fanners' Market, the Trolley serves the Library, the County Government Center, Mission Plaza, and the Historical Museum. While the Downtown Trolley accounts for only 5% of annual system ridership, it boasts the best passengers per vehicle mile performance due to its relatively short route. The Trolley's Short Range Transit Plan Page 63 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 passengers per vehicle hour performance was below average and should be targeted for 1 improvement. Findings 1 The most common origin — destination pair was between Monterey and Downtown. Unlike all other transit routes, the trolley primarily serves the tourist market in San Luis Obispo. As evidence of this, survey results revealed that nearly sixty percent of trolley passengers were first- time riders. Less than ten percent of the trolley passengers were either regular riders or affiliated with Cal Poly. 1 Opportunities Due to the Trolley's limited service area and dedicated purpose,prospective service changes must be designed to improve its utility to visitors to San Luis Obispo.As such, it is recommended that. the trolley'salignment and service days and hours be modified to better serve this market segment. The proposed route modification explored in Section 5.3.1 should improve the service and productivity of this route. 53 Recommended Service Changes The following service alternatives are recommended for discussion to the City of San Luis Obispo Transit system. They are broken down into short-term (one to two years, between FY 03/04 and FY 04/05), and mid-term (three to five years, between FY 05/06 and FY 07/08) and 1 long-term(FY 08/09 and beyond)service recommendations. Recommendations have been reviewed for their fiscal feasibility and their potential to improve service efficiency, recognizing that the system needs to take a balanced approach in providing the best service possible to the residents of San Luis Obispo. 53.1 Short-term Service Recommendations The following recommendations are designated as short-term recommendations because they address operational challenges that require immediate attention, or are changes that can be easily implemented.It.is expected that these recommendations can be implemented within the next two years(FY 03/04 to FY 04/05). Creation of New Route 6-.Dedicated Cal Poly Circulator As noted previously, all routes with the exception of the Downtown Trolley currently serve the Cal Poly campus. This route structure is not optimal for maximizing productivity, nor does it provide passengers with the highest level of service. Consequently,a route that circulates through the Cal Poly campus is proposed to improve transit service, while improving the transit system's overall productivity. This recommendation is supported by comments received during the on- board survey in which students requested more frequent service to and from the Cal Poly campus. Short Range Transit Plan Page 64 r City of San Luis Obispo Final Report In order to free up resources for New Route 6, it is recommended that routes 1, 2, 3, and, 6 be modified to no longer provide service to campus. Although an additional transfer may sometimes be required, the proposed service modifications will provide the Cal Poly community with more frequent service over a longer time span. Figure 5-1 is a graphical representation of the proposed route alignments for New Route 6. The new Route 6 consists of two loops,traveling in opposite directions. The eastern route travels 1 clockwise and starts at the Graphic Arts building on campus. From there it travels along Perimeter Drive,south on Grand,west on Mill, and south on Osos to serve the downtown transfer center. Then it travels east along Mill to California, travels north on California to Campus Way, 1 and ultimately returns to its point of origin in front of the Graphics Arts building. The western loop runs counter-clockwise and provides dedicated service to the North Foothill / Highland Drive area west of Cal Poly's campus, home to nearly 1,500 Cal Poly students. This loop also originates at the Graphics Arts Building, but travels west away from campus along Highland Drive,turning south on Patricia Drive,then traveling east along Foothill Boulevard before it turns north on California Boulevard to serve the Graphics Arts Building. This segment continues past ' the University Union, curving north on Perimeter Drive to return to the Agricultural Building. Service along these two loops will nm from 7:30 AM to 8:30 PM, Monday through Thursday, and 9:00' AM to 8:00 PM,Friday, and Saturday. Sunday service will initially not be provided,but will be evaluated for implementation after 2005 as additional funds become available. Operating on roughly 30-minute headways,these circulators would provide direct service to Cal Poly for the ' student-rich area of North Foothill, and would interface with other routes via timed transfers at the transfer center. ' Because demand for the circulator will fluctuate throughout the year, it is recommended that the City create peak and non-peak service periods. Non-peak service would be provided on weekends and during the summer by running one vehicle along a "Figure-8" pattern covering ' both the east and west loops. This would result in roughly 60-minute headways. Reducing the service span in off-peak periods would increase cost savings and provide more appropriate service levels for the given demand. Non-peak service should be provided during the hours of ' 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM. 1 1 r i Short Range Transit Plan Page 65 1 11 1off rmc 47. Y• ate. .��1R. ;M. :al,-h +. 4 ` ��' M M� #h ILI 4 y'�J r 4: e_ �t� Y•�I ,i.{� n .r''_ / qtr l�� _. • ■ �'.-i •�' j7P � ,+ r.e. r L� f`IZmw ~ tiXys ( ■.�•�,ZAM`k �r:.,l•- 1:y '�tirjlj• Y= t� `�f' + a :_Il.ti +.l�yy� ,�,Jfi s •t~ _:.Y sS4'ra-�rQJ.1,�tr /r' i �ry L"� 'T}g M,L `�T�� - ■� r ■ ! Y/., �� L� �'*Y,- . iti -S ra.t+� 174 :` ti.v -1 .1 t.��4/ • 4� ; 7{ _�7 �� .irS�'r►��y�o 'h•j � �•yrYJ<; }Ct- 13'j - �' fr�ir��,�,•1 ;i,.,f47��yi�3'S�,+ ''�1 ^� c, vc Y {•".Y ��.T `-Fl � d � l+Yr�`�'Ji <s��tK�"-�7� L� +- Y aT. r Yr'i 1 Y , ` ri � d y t - `� • � Sf Jr iff •}' i q 1 1 1ag . Y I • 1•. / • 1 • 1" • 1. 1 •" • 1" • • 11 • • • • 11 1 • 1" • • • 1 •rr • 1- •ri I City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Riders on Routes 2 and 6 also reported that they would be very likely to use more frequent service and would be willing to pay a higher fare for select services. The following suggested route changes respond directly to the interests of the system's riders by making travel between South Higuera and the rest of the city faster and more efficient. It is proposed that the City consolidate Routes 2 and 6 into one route, the "New Route 2." The New Route 2 eliminates the northern loop that serves Cal Poly and Foothill Boulevard and the Highway 101 portion of the southern loop. It provides two-way service along the current Route 2 alignment in downtown and in the South Broad area, and then travels south along South Higuera Street, turning west on Los Osos Valley Road, and crossing Highway 101 to serve the new ' shopping complex on Auto Park Way. It should be noted that New Route 2 will not provide direct service to the Day Center on Prado Road, an important destination for San Luis Obispo's homeless population. New Route 2 will stop on South Higuera, which will require a short ('/e ' mile) walk to the Day Center. Although the pedestrian facilities between the proposed stop and the Day Center are not ideal, there are marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals to facilitate. crossing South Higuera. On Prado, the sidewalk is intermittent which is not ideal for pedestrians. ' However,the traffic volumes on Prado are generally light, suggesting that safety should not be a significant concern. Although not in the scope of this plan, it is recommended that the City improve pedestrian access and safety measures along Prado Road,to ensure safe and easy access to the Day Center. By using two vehicles to serve New Route 2,the service frequency improves to headways of only ' 30 minutes. This is a marked improvement over the 40-minute and 70-minute headways that Routes 2 and 6 currently have. By consolidating these routes into a new Route 2 and working in concert with New Route 6,the City will provide a significantly higher level of weekday service. ' It is also recommended that Route 2 provide peak and non-peak service during weekdays. Peak service should operate between 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M., and 3:00 P.M and 6:30 P.M., using two vehicles on 30 minute headways. Between the mid-day non-peak hours of 9:00 A.M.to 3:00 ' P.M., it is recommended that only one vehicle be used, running on 60 minute headways, to increase cost savings. ' To implement this new route, additional service stops need to be installed on the way to the shopping complex west of US 101. These new stops are listed in the Service Stop Master Plan, which is discussed later. This segment of the New Route 2 also only be feasible if the intersection at Los Osos Valley Road and Auto Park Way is signalized. Otherwise, it would be extremely difficult for transit vehicles to make a left turn onto Los Osos Valley Road from Auto Park Way. ' Figure 5-2 displays the proposed route alignment for this route. ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 67 ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Fi ure 5-2 Proposed New Route 2 Alignment r K r YA' F7 Eliminate Route 1 Service to Cal Poly Agricultural Building ' Route 1 currently serves the southeast and northwest area of San Luis Obispo with two large loops connected by a two-way segment along Santa Rosa Street. This route carries many students ' and non-students between the Sinshiemer / Orcutt Road / Johnson Street area, downtown, and Foothill Boulevard/Highland Drive. Many non-student riders transfer from Route 1 to Route 2 to reach South Higuera. Many students use Route 1 for short trips along Foothill Boulevard and to 1 reach Cal Poly. ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 68 fill t i t oak tir � ��~ C If ~ t�t��'yy'jj�y'11�a��,, � '. � �� / }rj�d >• <>�1�1 . ��- e" NRE s. v �� rr� ..-Jy\�N�\. � 1.�� s• }� Ir yjjC.7��h�.o� �� i� ��'�» ,�';� ,c.��YDY•■ ,hh} t—^t,+'s- � �,. c. t -t'++��e-i� �ff� y � .tom:. '•JQ�'•a fl- thY[y '• f�e�y�'V-'� Ste; -` FCf ��y� w ,t k�� r•. +i .r , !'• • /' ,}�tr 1.: (�'.e-i'�4��F:3 Ir.1f..: ,��`h yi �*r�.*��` +..Y Uw RE, .- �i1� � v� - �l •K � J �E� 1�Y'!I*.4�� j �s��i••.•f....L. t/ .1/ ��!< 1 .� "�• •lam• X >-..1Lt.T�+r'w'b` �� ` \?��TT 1��..��'�.' �' .L+�P�X� r.� 1 .. ��. .�. - �� a�hq �. ti y 1 t. ate' t� .• �■ r".. �. C� ��r nF�s r / i�Y li7„ �• `� �f` �5,, -' .{?Ty'; �� A�C ��s`�,6i -""�� ... � \\ \`�;� i .3—_. �,�.�. .. .'4�Ya Ste•'.i:. •�•A`.�i, � .�iT i City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Evening Service IAs discussed earlier, the on-board survey indicated that two-thirds of passengers would be very likely to use evening service, if it were provided. Because the on-board survey and SLOCOG's I public hearing on unmet transit needs both demonstrated community desire for evening service, it is important to explore how this service could be provided. The following discussion examines the issues involved with implementing night service and proposes how it could be employed in Ithe current fiscal environment. Demand for evening service is considerably less than demand for daytime service; therefore, I evening transit service must be designed with different service objectives in mind. New evening service should focus on providing basic, lifeline service for individuals without access to other mobility options. Given lower expected ridership and fiscal constraints, evening service in San ILuis Obispo should not be as extensive or as frequent as daytime service. The City provided evening service on Routes 1, 2 and 5, along all major corridors. Service ran until 10:52 PM Monday through Thursday during the fall, winter and spring quarters. Each of these routes served the Cal Poly campus and a large percentage of evening riders were affiliated with Cal Poly.Future implementation of evening service should continue to consider the needs of ' the Cal Poly community,as well as those of the general community. If the City chooses to implement evening service, it is recommended that service be provided on ' three routes, operating from the end of regular daytime service until 8:30 PM, Monday through Friday, while school is in session at Cal Poly. Figure 54 presents the proposed route alignments for evening service. While these suggested routes serve many of the same areas as the daytime ' routes, none of the evening routes duplicates the route alignment of daytime routes, with the exception of New Route 6.Descriptions of the evening routes are given below. Northern Loop Night Service—Night service in the northern section of the city will be provided by the New Route 6, which is already proposed to run until 8:30 PM at peak periods during the academic year. During summer and off-peak periods, service should be provided with only one vehicle, traveling in a "Figure-8"pattern, as outlined previously.No additional cost is associated with bundling the New Route 6 into a night service scheme. ' Southeast Loop Night Service—To provide service to the Sinshiemer area to the southeast, it is recommended that the City run night service along the southern portion of Route 1's existing ' alignment. This route segment goes southwest along Pahn Street, south on Nipomo Street, northeast on Marsh Street,then south on Broad Street. The southeast loop continues south along Broad Street until it cuts east across Orcutt Road,north on Augusta Street,east on Bishop Street, ' and then north on Johnson Street,passing both the French Hospital and San Luis Obispo General Hospital. Finally, the route turns west onto Monterey Street and stops at the transfer center at Palm Street and Osos Street. ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 70 I City of San Luis Obispo Final Report tSouthwest Loop Night Service — To serve the southwest part of San Luis Obispo, it is 1 recommended that a new evening route nun along a combination of the existing Route 2 and Route 5 alignments. From Osos and Palm,this route runs southwest along Palm, turning south on Nipomo, west on Archer, and then south along South Higuera Street until it reaches Los Osos Valley Road Upon reaching Los Osos Valley Road, the route crosses US-101 and continues northwest along Los Osos Valley Road, serving the new shopping center in the southwest, and then turns east at Madonna Road. Traveling northeast on Madonna, the southwest night route serves the Promenade and Madonna Plaza, before it reconnects with South Higuera and travels north, along the existing Route 2 alignment, east on Marsh, north on Santa Rosa, then curving around on Mill Street to stop at Osos and Palm. If the City implements evening fixed-route service, it will also be required to provide demand- responsive service during the same hours, as stipulated by the Americans with Disabilities Act of ' 1990. 1 1 Short Range Transit Plan Page 71 ti 'fit. `'.7 4N:" * i`• •o' } 'x•.C v� �� , a� 1}1^'^• 1r 'tip a�t'.�c�y'� ��Z�f k•.� Jul�'� ZZ W'�.�y'�•,1"Yy(✓{94�a:�'l��,r•.. vj zr .. yy� !.1 Ir,�.Zi j•1. t�`� YJY tom' ,-'�•Et�•f �'•_ R -'S'f' it/.f.�7 j .1(1r �a a Y� tiAl'�t"�sa 5�\ [•.-OSx_ �1 }a .'c 'S '�r ."Lr/i �,��„'� F� �t �t !' ;�'• .��....•1 A jd.'� � y.c<�a��`l+`�i �"i,/'+y�.� y }A;• ' or�p� i�..�;�� I Gr*y'aaF��'£yt�d•`a ✓" S-A•1� '�� ^'�: J la �5 ',`JACk�_Jt t '\ ��.1•� � r ,it��Y'17 � .+� i1r��t t t��y Y� V * `' �'�i��yY f ! u risw"g � ^•t�aJ•1� �•I'� � �'t- V t: fir. •�t`' C� 1"s''/�'' {. 'l^ R`�t � }y I.VIAs fill=�--lea `;Q " �p.>., Ir t •.s .i� ',; � ^_. i .ry yl°Y �t�,L';•,, y_fli�_$'- t�^l `a'y �•,'�.:..+'�'�*:�._,*• ice •• y ,!_ 0 7 •_0 35 i"0=!19 x�.7 Miles 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Downtown Trolley Schedule Change and Service Extension The Downtown Trolley provides free circulator service in downtown San Luis Obispo, Monday through Sunday, from 12:00 PM to 5:00 PM. On Thursdays, the Trolley extends its service hours 1 until 9:00 PM and its service area up Monterey Street to the Peach Tree Inn. This popular extension brings tourists and visitors to the weekly downtown Fanners' Market, which runs between 6:00 PM and 9:00 PM on Thursday evenings. The Trolley accounts for the lowest percentage of system-wide ridership and trolley ridership is particularly low on non-Farmers' Market days(Friday-Wednesday). On average,Thursday trolley ' ridership is twice that of what it is on every other day. In order to maximize Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday ridership, it is proposed that the City eliminate Trolley service between Monday and Wednesday,and redirect these resources to provide extended service between Upper Monterey and Downtown, Thursday through Sunday. By extending the service hours and coverage area, the Trolley is more likely to attract additional riders from the Upper Monterey hotel corridor. 1 To generate additional revenue to pay for the service, it is recommended that the City impose a modest fare for Trolley use and then introduce a local business "Trolley Surcharge". The City should impose a modest$0.25 fare for the modified Downtown Trolley service.This nominal fare should not deter riders from using the service,but will cover part of the operating costs. Based on FY 2001 ridership figures for the Downtown Trolley, the Trolley would have generated $11,900 if fares were collected. Even without additional ridership, this fare revenue would deflect approximately 20% of the operating costs. Increased ridership figures from the proposed service change would likely increase this farebox recovery ratio even further. After enacting a $0.25 fare for the Trolley, the City should approach downtown businesses and hotels along Monterey Street with a proposal for a modest "Trolley Surcharge". Downtown businesses benefit most from the operation of the Downtown Trolley, and therefore would be likely to support its operation if faced with the choice between a moderate annual contribution ' and the reduction or elimination of Trolley service.Furthermore,the"phasing in"of Trolley costs. could be done in such a manner that increases understanding behind the need for such charges and raise awareness of the Trolley's value to downtown businesses and the local economy. ' The recommended service changes focus available resources on key ridership sectors(namely the tourist market) by providing more efficient and useful service for roughly the same cost, while I simultaneously generating additional revenue for the transit system. It is therefore recommended that the City eliminate Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday Trolley service, modify the service hours, and extend the route alignment such that it always serves upper Monterey Street on I Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Table 5-1 outlines the proposed schedule for this recommendation, and Figure 5-5 displays the recommended route alignment for the new Downtown Shuttle, with an alternate route for Thursday service due to the Farmers Market on ' Higuera Street. For annual costs,refer to Table 5-2. ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 73 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 i l i • i 1 r • 1 1 ' 1 1 11 ' 1 1 11 ' 1 1 1 11 11 ' 1 � ' l l r 1 1 1 • i r • i 1 ' 1 ' ' i u i -asp 'S" ::70 ✓ 'S +-ir,�l �. j: i -�R , T J ?i\ 1! ` oY i. f ''�t'ralf. - . `�'+,-M xa. I.a .• �<�ml�b(((111evur Ak^r.�p��a r � y � •. 4 aT3�1[ �.SI',T `• ��' �9i .,,y ,yc wyp- a. r:J bAl yi�' i'�aG� s' -o '• afl %. .• 'YS., fQ'� � S� +-t `rye 1r C• 7y r �-. K r � ' - �a .J lY1 ►�..1.t t� � � t � a i 4,•TY, Iy ••� �` y vv��rr t �+ 1 vas �. .c•rl � ? � `1� w. � � 9- �' - c /•sr� yc�1r�L t�r � • 1 " �-.. ,may♦ td � a�r .�SA..,i4 L�' \ \ ��'_ / J3'•• .. ,. �.: '- A'r!J D'S\• < �j 'r n5-kt'il'rY� -r / a ... '+J �� C i y, <¢ �v t S i r1 � fir' • a � •.rf r 3 \ - , ! .:.1f`/��. . , �•✓I )� nay ,! � '• - 1{�-_-�: �``. y- _!moi •.\�� lty •� •...r`W�. /•`T � iG♦ `�>'� sir _ J i r �a1 � 1 0. _ �.: ..J4 � �.\ �'t•7,' '�f•i ��r- `I r�Y'4I��,t� gr ,tet �� 3; ` ;s ,, 4✓jie .: 4•Ia ,i"-!4'�rr-\ �f' a r��r�ji�iY•Ty � 1p�/ '� •1 � �` �l ` � !Fr �� ` �4��j .�� 'yaJ. i• ,�•�,y� i v•C�f ✓'01'. r a s• a�� ,1 J. �..'r�`� '.ay+''Y' tea -S Sri �• LegendWeekday 'S?t a X•*�j y c I+ A•t l s 1 �!(�w�^+•) �pT!�Y 4 55, V,ti. Weekend • _ _ _ _ Thursday Rte' � r ♦ �t'�7► e�•f�':.�Y4f4 '1 ��{f •� � ��.��y Route •:.•....�r�.3.•y-ti of ►•.. •�-�`:•£' C�sY ^:N i �""Ea c�i,�yjN�_�, .f- • • 111 ' • • • • I 11II]VATIVAM 6 01 IM114jor. • 011ie -• it ' . r • i i I City of San Luis Obispo Final Report The route restructuring described above will improve the quality of service for existing transit riders because they provide better mobility and access to popular origins and destinations. It is reasonable to expect that these improvements will encourage additional transit trips by current passengers, however there also needs to be a renewed emphasis on attracting new rider;. One ' program which has been explored and recommended in earlier planning documents (such as the circulation element) is the voluntary trip reduction program. The voluntary trip reduction program would target larger employers (50+ employees) whose offices are within '/4 mile of a city transit route. Similar to the agreement with Cal Poly, employers would pay a fee to the City, which would entitle their employees to ride the transit system by simply showing valid photo identification. This type of system is often called a "flashpass."A flashpass program makes riding transit more amenable for employees because they do not have to worry about paying a transit fare. The City would benefit from this program by I receiving a stable revenue stream,reducing the number of automobile trips, improving air quality and increasing transit ridership. Similar flashpass programs have been implemented successfully in Santa Clara County (Eco Pass) and Boulder, Colorado (GO Boulder Eco Pass) among others. Both of these programs charge employers a fixed fee that is a function of the number of employees and the availability of transit near their office. Often the program cost per employee is significantly lower than a comparable monthly or annual pass would be.For participating employers who provide employee identification cards,a sticker from the transit agency indicates that the employee is eligible to ride the bus. When an employer does not issue identification cards, the transit agency issues a photo- id pass. Other models exist for flashpass programsand the San Luis Obispo Transit Manager has developed an alternative model (see Appendix D for more details). In that model, employers would pay a fee for a fixed number of bus trips each month and bus drivers would track trip use be each employer. The challenge of such a design is that bus drivers would be held responsible for tracking boardings. This could be a source of dispute if an employer feels that it is being ' charged for more trips than their employees are making. Similarly, if multiple employers participate in the program, tracking the boardings could be particularly difficult for drivers serving heavily traveled routes.At this time, it is recommended that the City meet with employers who are potential participants in order to decide which program design is the most appropriate. Then the City should take the necessary steps to implement this program, which may include adopting a trip reduction program as an element of each specific plan. Transportation Impact Fee The City of San Luis Obispo currently has a transportation impact fee (TIF) that is assessed to developers for their contribution to buses and bus stop amenities. Currently, the City has budgeted $750,000 for the procurement of five buses and $53,550 for the improvement of bus stop amenities, although this impact fee is currently being updated by the City. It should also be noted that the City historically has utilized both TDA and FTA Section 5307 funding sources for Short Range Transit Plan Page 75 City of Sam Luis Obispo Final Report capital procurement. While this has been an acceptable use of these funding sources, it precludes ' the City from uses these funds for improving service operation. Therefore, in the future it is recommended that they City prioritize the use of available TIF funds for capital procurement prior to spending either TDA or FTA funds. tAdd Service Coverase Performance Standard In continuing its comprehensive program of performance standards, San Luis Obispo should include an objective regarding service coverage. Service coverage can be thought of as the proportion of the population that can reasonably access the transit network. An appropriate objective might be"Provide transit service to most local residents and businesses."Although the actual performance standards need to be discussed by the City, two possible performance standards are"Eighty-five percent(85%)of city residents are within '/a mile of fixed-route transit ' service"and"Eighty-five percent(85%) of employers with over 25 employees are within '/mile of fixed-route transit service." Data should be assembled such that these performance standards can be evaluated in future short-range transit plans.. ' 53.2 Medium-Term Service Recommendations The following recommendations are considered medium-term recommendations because they may be more difficult or time consuming to implement,may require further analysis,and may not be in as great demand as the short-term recommendations presented above. It is expected that 1 these recommendations can be implemented in the three to five-year timeframe (FY 05/06 to FY 07/08). ' Enhance Peak Service Sixty percent of survey respondents indicated that they would be very likely to use more frequent service. Providing more frequent bus service is more expensive and usually requires a reallocation of resources unless a new revenue source is identified. One possibility for ' reallocating resources is to reduce service during off-peak periods in favor of increased service during peak periods. The primary justification behind this reallocation of resources is that in many communities, the majority of daily riders are commuting to work during the peak AM and ' PM periods. This is not the case in San Luis Obispo, where approximately forty percent of the riders are either going to or from school. School hours diverge from typical workday hours, particularly at Ca1.Poly where there are an increasing number of night classes. Consequently, it is not recommended that the City shift resources from off-peak to peak periods at present, but this issue should be revisited in coming years. Monitor Planning/Development Activity Policy 2.1 from the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan states that the "City should ' encourage transit development, expansion, coordination, and aggressive marketing throughout San Luis Obispo County to serve a broader range of local and regional transportation needs ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 76 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report including commuter service." Additionally, the General Plan requires the expansion of transit ' service to meet the goal of increasing all intra-city trips from the current 6-7%transit mode split to 8% of all trips by 2010. In order to successfully expand transit services to meet this goal and unmet transit needs throughout the city,the transit system must continue to monitor planning and 1 development activity. Whenever possible, transit system staff should attempt to work with the planning process such that development projects (e.g. senior housing) are located within the existing network of transit services. Development projects with high percentages of transit ' dependent populations can significantly impact a transit system and may require service changes, such as additional service,more frequent service and/or service at different times of the day. ' At present, the City of San Luis Obispo is evaluating three different specific plans for their development potential, including the Airport Area, Margarita Area and Orcutt Area, each of which is currently outside the city limits of San Luis Obispo. While these specific plans have not ' yet been adopted by the Planning Commission,at build-out the areas could have a combined total of 1.831 million square feet of office development, 722,000 square feet of commercial development, 1,880 residential dwelling units, and a new elementary school. Consequently, the ' transit system should continue working with the Planning Commission and planning staff to identify specific projects that are likely to impact the transit system. Figure 5-6 is a graphical representation of the specific areas. The feasibility of providing transit services to these areas is ' directly related to when development projects and infrastructure improvements occur. The City should continually monitor development and infrastructure improvements to gauge when service changes are appropriate. Due to the current schedule for infrastructure and development projects, ' increased service for these areas will be discussed in the long-term recommendations section. I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 77 ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Figure 5-6 Map of Specific Areas Aim 1 \4 \ _ NUFFffft� 4p ✓ y IRd ✓ I I tImprove Core Service to Core Service to High School While high school students can ride Route 1 or Route 3 to get to and from school, neither of these routes provides direct service to San Luis Obispo High School. As a means of increasing ridership and providing a higher level of service to the high school community, it is ' recommended that the City institute a minor route deviation to one of these routes during one run before school begins and another run shortly after school lets out. It is expected that this route deviation would take no more than 6-8 minutes to complete and would not negatively impact the route schedule, although it will likely eliminate the recovery time at the end of the run. This route deviation should be implemented on a 6-month trial basis and ridership should be carefully monitored during this period to determine its long-term viability. Evaluate Evaluate Increasing Costs ' As is the case with most transit systems, the cost of paratransit services in the City of San Luis Obispo has been increasing significantly in recent years. At present, SLORTA provides ' paratransit services for the City of San Luis Obispo, although there is no contractual arrangement between the two entities. It is recommended that the City conduct a comprehensive evaluation of tShort Range Transit Plan Page 78 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report this arrangement with SLORTA to ensure that it is the most cost effective means of providing paratransit services. This analysis should include a trend.analysis of paratransit operating and financial data, in addition to a peer review to provide some context on appropriate costs and operating statistics. Numerous management and organizational structures exist for the provision 1 of paratransit services, including contracting to private-for-profit organizations, contracting to non-profit organizations, serving as a transportation broker overseeing multiple paratransit providers, or providing paratransit services internally. Many cities have been experimenting with ' contracting with local taxi companies for the provision of some paratransit service and have found this strategy to be particularly cost effective. Regardless of the management or organizational structure chosen (unless the service is provided in house), the City of San Luis Obispo should enter into a contractual arrangement with the preferred paratransit provider. This provides a mechanism for assigning responsibility, setting performance standards, and containing operational costs.It is recommended that contractual language for the service be developed by the ' City prior to releasing an RFP for the paratransit service. Increase Fare Revenue Increasing transit ridership is best achieved through improved transit service, which often requires additional funding. Raising the revenue generated from existing routes is one basic way ' in which San Luis Obispo can increase revenues. The City of San Luis Obispo transit system has a respectable farebox recovery rate of ' approximately twenty percent when including the annual Cal Poly contribution as a locally generated revenue source. However,the transit system's farebox recovery rate drops dramatically ' to 7.9% once the Cal Poly contribution is removed from the calculation. While the Cal Poly contribution is a stable source of revenue,the transit system would nonetheless be well advised to consider other means of bolstering passenger fares. Additional mechanisms for increasing fare ' revenue include increasing cash fares, introducing deep discounted fares options, such.as multiple r•, ticket books or unlimited day or week passes, or implementing variable pricing by time of day. Generally speaking,a fare increase will reduce demand for transit.But,providing a deep discount ' can potentially reduce the number of riders that would stop using transit as a result of a fare increase. ' Cash fares were last increased in January 1997 and have been at $0.75 for a regular cash fare since that time. Prior to that fare increase, there had not been a fare increase in sixteen years. A cash fare increase or the introduction of new fare media such as a tourist "day pass" or a discounted ticket booklets can be effective approaches for increasing passenger fares. Before increasing the fare, it should be noted that transit systems typically experience a slight 1 reduction in system ridership whenever cash fares are increased. The industry standard is that ridership declines by 3.3 percent for every 10 percent increase in fares.(assuming a fare elasticity of-0.33 using the Simpson-Curtin formula). Research in smaller communities, such as San Luis Obispo,suggests that passengers are even more sensitive to fare increases,particularly during off- peak hours, such that a 10 percent increase in fares might yield a 4.3 to 4.8 percent decline in Short Range Transit Plan Page 79 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 system wide ridership. Consequently,while a fare increase may be appropriate in the near future, the City of San Luis Obispo should proceed cautiously to avoid losing a significant percentage of 1 overall ridership. Regardless of the approach taken,itshould be consistent with policy 2.6.A from the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, which states that "bus fares will be set at 1 levels where cost is not a constraint for people to use buses." 5.3.3 Long-Term Service Recommendations 1 The following recommendations are considered long-term recommendations because they may exceed the life of this plan, require additional data or further analysis, and may not be as vital to 1 the system's interests as the recommendations presented above. These recommendations generally apply after the five-year period of this plan,from FY 08/09 and beyond. 1 Evaluate Potential for Subscription Bus Service Providing express subscription bus service to major employers can be an extremely effective 1 means for transit systems to expand into new markets. This market segment usually has relatively high sensitivity to travel time, convenience and ease of travel, and is much less sensitive to out- of-pocket travel costs. This market segment can be characterized as willing to pay a premium for 1 a comfortable ride in an over-the-road coach to and from their place of employment. As such, many transit systems charge premium fares for their subscription bus service and are able to generate more revenue than the service costs to operate. Subscription bus service would originate within the City of San Luis Obispo and provide closed-door service to destinations outside of the city limits. 1 Of course,there has to be sufficient demand to support the provision of subscription bus service, which is limited at present in San Luis Obispo. Such a service would need to generate one hundred percent (100%) farebox recovery in order to be feasible. Nonetheless, express bus 1 service to Santa Maria or the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near Avila Beach may be a viable option at some point. Consequently, City of San Luis Obispo staff should evaluate the ' demand for this service and it should be considered for implementation if warranted. Evaluate Long-Term Potential for Limited StopiExpress Service 1 As part of the on-board survey performed.for this study,transit passengers were asked about their likelihood of using express bus service and forty-one percent(41%)of respondents indicated that 1 they were very likely to use the service,thirty-four percent(34%) said they were somewhat likely to use the service and twenty-five percent (25%) stated they were unlikely to use the service.. While these results do not provide unequivocal support for this service, it does suggest that there 1 is some latent demand for express bus service that could be capitalized on in the future. In the 2001 Transportation Survey, more direct bus service was the most frequently cited change that would induce respondents to ride the bus more often. ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 80 i City of San Luis Obispo Final Report These survey results suggest that further investigation into the feasibility of limited stop/express 1 bus service is wan-anted. To evaluate the demand for and feasibility of express service, the City should implement express service on major corridors to "shadow" existing service during peak hours, on a strictly exploratory basis. Express bus service is considered a long-term issue that ' should be considered for implementation over the next five to ten years. Evaluate Potential for Demand Area Responsive Transit(DART) ' It is recommended that the City evaluate the potential for demand area responsive transit(DART) services by exploring new transit markets that could be served using non-traditional small vehicle ' transit services. DART service offers several advantages over traditional fixed-route services, namely flexibility, potentially lower costs and the ability to provide context-specific transit service. Small vehicle circulator; can take a variety of forms, from high frequency, fixed-route ' loops (such as the proposed Cal Poly circulator), to deviated fixed routes using real-time dispatching,or even demand responsive, reservation-based service. The goal for DART service is . to provide fast, flexible and efficient service for short, frequent trips in areas where traditional, ' large vehicle, fixed-route service is either not desirable or as efficient. These services are particularly effective in areas with low-density development and/or widely dispersed trip generators that are hard to serve with a fixed route. Depending upon the circumstances, DART ' service could be provided on certain days or at given times in lieu of regular fixed-route service. DART service would also be a viable alternative for introducing new service in an area of potentially low transit demand. DART service could also be used for providing evening service. Initially, DART service would likely operate as a route deviation service with set time points at established bus stops, although the service could eventually become a fixed-route service over time. ' DART service should be designed to maximize customer convenience, ease of use, and travel ' comfort. Similar to deviated, fixed-route service, DART service can attend to both the general public and disabled passengers, obviating the need for additional service for the disabled, a possible cost savings for a transit agency. Another benefit is that vehicles can follow more direct ' routes between origins and destinations, reducing the travel time for passengers. DART service also improves the convenience of transit by providing curb-to-curb service. However, this added accessibility requires planning a trip well in advance (sometimes up to 6 days) and limits the flexibility that passengers have to change the details of their trip. The City of San Luis Obispo should attempt to minimize the time required for making trip reservations. Lastly, it should be noted that small vehicle transit services, such as DART service,are not necessarily less expensive ' to operate than regular fixed-route service, although capital acquisition and maintenance costs are often lower. This service should be evaluated by the City of San Luis Obispo as part of its long- term strategic plan. Monitor Planning& Development Activity As discussed in the medium-term recommendations, the City should anticipate expanding transit service to new development in the south. The following outlines the anticipated demand for Short Range Transit Plan Page 81 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report transit service in each of the three areas with specific area plans and a conceptual plan for transit service that will address the transit demand. The proposed Airport Area Specific Plan, which is located on approximately 1,000 acres of unincorporated land bordering the southern boundary of the City of San Luis Obispo (between South Higuera and Broad, south of Prado), allows for 953,000 square feet of business park/office and 657,000 square feet of service commercial and manufacturing development. Capacity exists for over 10,000 employees in business parks and services/manufacturing land uses and roughly 95%of the non-residential land use in the Airport Area is within '/a mile of an arterial or collector street, which is generally thought of as the maximum distance that a typical passenger will walk to access the bus network. Consequently, it is anticipated that the Airport Area will have considerably greater demand for transit services as the proposed development occurs. ' The proposed Margarita Area Specific Plan, located on 420 acres of land directly north of the Airport Area Specific Plan, allows for 880 dwelling units, 878,000 square feet of business park/office, and 65,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial development.Unlike the Airport ' Area, the Margarita Area combines residential and commercial land uses which results in more diverse transit needs in the area. In similar fashion to the Airport Area, it is anticipated that the Margarita Area will have considerably greater demand for transit services as the proposed ' development occurs. The proposed Orcutt Area Specific Plan, located on 231 acres of land south of Orcutt Road,west ' of Johnson Street, north of Tank Farm Road and east of the railroad tracks, allows for between 900 to 1000 dwelling units and the possible construction of one elementary school. Approximately half of the Orcutt Area is also designated for conservation or parks use. It should 1 also be noted that the periphery of the Orcutt Area already receives transit service via Route 3. In terms of coverage, Route 3 appears to adequately serve the Orcutt Area although in the future the current headways may be insufficient to meet transit demand when the Orcutt Area is built out. If ' appropriate, an additional bus could be added to Route 3 to reduce the headway to meet the increased demand for transit services. 1 During the stakeholder interview and on-board survey process, it was found that there is significant interest in the concept of a cross-town route, providing service between the southern ' areas of Sinshiemer and South Higuera/ Los Osos Valley Road. One challenge in the design of this service is the lack of direct street connections between the Sinshiemer neighborhood and South Higuera corridor. Routing buses farther north to use existing roads, such as South Street, ' would significantly limit service options due to the long distances and less direct routing that result in less efficient operations. However, as the roadway network associated with the Airport and Margarita specific plans is completed,more route options will be available. Figure 5-7 presents one possible route alignment for cross-town service designed to provide direct service between the southeast and southwest part of San Luis Obispo,while simultaneously providing service to the Margarita and Airport areas. This route requires additional infrastructure, some of the more major projects include the extension of Prado to Madonna, a connection ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 82 1 ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report between Prado and Tank Farm, and an extension of Buckley to South Higuera. Current improvements planned for Prado and Los Osos Valley Roads will facilitate the implementation of this route recommendation. It is expected that the initial demand for this figure-8 route would be met with only one vehicle. ' Figure 5-7 Possible Cross-Town Service Alignment tr y l ' 5.4 Service Plan Summary ' Sections 5.3.1, 5.3.2, and 5.3.3 explored a variety of planning recommendations. The following table (Table 5-2) provides a comprehensive overview of service recommendations for easy reference along with their annualized cost. The proposed changes increase the City's annual ' transit operating expenses by $42,519. However, the increased cost results in a marked increase in the level of service provided by the City. Figure 5-8 displays the proposed route network on a single, easily referenced map. 1 I Short Range Transit Plan Page 83 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Table 5-2 Summary of Short and Medium-Term Service Recommandations ' Annual Revenue Annual Revenue Peak Annual Coat Recommendation Vehicle Hours Vehicle Miles Vehicles Headway, Cost Difference Create new Route 6 5,266 46,667 2 30 $103,991 -$47,821 ' Create new Route 2 10,057 78,354 2 30 $272,710 $72,391 Eliminate Route 1 service to Cal Poly -721 -5,361 1 60 -$11,740 -$11,740 ' Agriculture Buildin Eliminate Northern -1,778 -13,522 1 60 -$29,613 429,613 Loop of Route 3 Modify and Extend 3,002 26,009 1 30 $72,277 $25,272 ' Downtown Trolley Implement Evening 801 14,059 2 30/60 $30,874 $30,874 Service ' Improve SLOHigh 384 1,441 N/A N/A $3,156 $3,156 School Service Total 20,154 172,117 0 N/A $441,655 $41,519 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 84 1 r • Ir rr ' -r• ) �} -ItMoo M13A AW `may �� `�t•�.'«�, � `+ k .�� ilk +.' � _x r^\;r; ':��• 2: a �i K•K^ I`� t �dh�-r l • f � n_.i i•It4 a r�\� 1 0'.1•+�'\� Y� �' i 'u......�FFF �� A , '� il7 d� ��i .ter �` a�e�• 1;,a � 3•<,� s{��f •r. �'• ^^�-Ca� ,•7` ..? O`1'..� �� •,''i+--:G. '�.r ��s,."�. ._:'fit CMZ..�."j �� 1 Cin?of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' 5.5.1 Bus Stop Classifications tIn order to ensure that service stop facilities reflect the needs of the system's passengers,the City should utilize the following classifications for its bus stops. Classifications are based on empirical ' observation of San Luis Obispo Transit's ridership patterns and on nationwide industry standards. Daily boardings are the best indicator for stop activity and should be used to determine stop classifications and amenity levels. Table 5-3 outlines recommended improvements to San Luis ' Obispo Transit's service stop classification policy. A list of all San Luis Obispo bus stops and their amenities can be found in Appendices A and B. ' Table 5-3 Service Stop Classification Daily. Boardings Chassification, 1to7 Type 1 ' 8to14 Type 2 15 to 64 Type 3 64 or More Type 4 1 Table 5-4 describes the amenities to be provided for each stop type. All Type I stops should be equipped with a transit sign that lists the route numbers serving the stop. All Type 2 stops should ' be equipped with a transit sign that also displays schedule information, as well as a bench (located on the sidewalk by the sign). All Type 3 stops should have a second bench to accommodate increased ridership, and a shelter. Finally, all Type 4 stops should have all of the ' previously mentioned amenities in addition to a trash container,night lighting, a payphone,a bike rack and an electronic messaging sign to communicate information to riders. ' Table 54 Service Stop Amenities by Stop Class ' Bench on Service Stop Transit Schedule sidewalk or Second Shelter, mtmElectronicuag� Trash Night Pay Rike Cbrasificat� sign Informationin bench t container 6shfing plwnr• MW t Type i x Type 2 x x x ' Type3 x x x x x Type 4 x x x x x x x x x x ' NOTES:*Installation of pay phone is subject to phone company decision. ^Bilce rack installation is sabject to passenger demand `Electronic messaging signs are installed at the discretion of the city. 5.5.2 Service Stop Schematics ' In addition to these service stop classifications, sample schematics for each bus stop type are included below. These schematics illustrate the general placement of service stop amenities for ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 86 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report each bus stop type and are not to scale. All existing City standards should be referenced for 1 guidance on bus stop dimensions and specific ammenity placement, given varying traffic speeds and bus sizes. Special attention should also be given to ADA compliance and accessible design issues, including the placement of ammenities at right-angles to each other. Finally, the Transit Manager and the City Engineer should collaborate on final decisions regarding specific placement of bus stop amenities and bus stop design, especially those located in the public right-of-way. 1 Figure 5-9 is a 3-dimensional depiction of what an ideal Type 4 service stop would look like. The stop includes a transit sign with departure times, two benches, a shelter, a trash container, night lighting, a pay phone, and a bike rack. The stop is situated at the near side of the intersection to expedite boarding and alighting. ADA accessible sidewalks connect the stop to the sidewalk network, making the stop both ADA, pedestrian, and bike accessible. A red painted curb demarcates the stop position of the bus. Figures 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, and 5-13 are generalized schematics for the other bus stop types. 1 Figure 5-9 Example of Type 4 Service Stop Trneampam.i3Os.trn ebp mrAinaamm.amiw qpi� aOWmr.atrbnmmmw.nyq I . OpMi}s pry pear.anO a Ob rsi T1H ' 60.0WOO B(tlM MOf NG! O M Y W ItK901 b IQaNb Y1bCl1 OpuWyalO auplrctrq.AUR URONW4 aawav MmaGM CrCOb M abwaa neOYOI. rmkiq M OOp0d11 A0A mp pi0ntlmn/ppO liYnpr. A NO papas apo oaagFOp M OOD pwOm a1 M OM1 I I Short Range Transit Plan Page 87 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 Figure 5-10 Type 4 Service Stop Schematic 1 1 1 �J feywiaie Benrh Second Banco Bdm Bei ,1 Sines Tress Reoeputle ADAACMSWW SWUNOM Trend Sp WYn Ueporhee TWO �•\ `�. and EbrhhNe Mes"Ov 5qn New Sift j 1 stop PI Pow Red We 1 Figure 5-11 Type 3 Service Stop Schematic 1 1 j j ' Bench Second Boner • I i — — Shaftet r ADA Acssoila sdadaft ` Trend Sign Vft DeVe me Tena Now Side Stop Pdeermd '� ' fended Red CerD iShort Range Transit Plan Page 88 i City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Figure 5-12 Type 2 Service Stop Schematic AM \ se.weu \ � Two sign vxm oewe.e nnie S ' stoo POsoenm Pe6aeA Rae am ' Figure 5-13 Type 1 Service Stop Schematic 1 J ACAAmeS56e \ Jkk{ Nw Sde :•• '•• stopPgoewd -.. Pahoed Red Cufb Short Range Transit Plan Page 89 ' Final Report City of San Luis Obispo ep ' 5.53 Bus Stop Placement Standards Bus stop spacing is a primary determinant of transit accessibility. Because of this, it important to make service stops as accessible and easy to get to as possible. Having service stops at every ' intersection along a transit route would provide the shortest walking distance to the route. However,this density of stops can lower efficiency because a bus that stops more frequently will have a slower average speed,increasing the number of vehicles needed to provide a given level of service. San Luis Obispo should always balance this operational constraint with service accessibility by maintaining an appropriate number of stops. The following service stop placement standards are provided to ensure that San Luis Obispo Transit allocates its resources where bus stops are needed the most. These standards achieve an appropriate balance between convenience and service efficiency by considering the density of the service area and the characteristics of surrounding land uses. Table 5-5 presents these standards. Table 5-5 Service Stop Placement Standards ss. Pr� r wz✓ 4 _ 3"�.tFs�,.."'� .ax.n,��,� �'as,il ,r7 "t',-,..G: Core Eve other block 1/8 mile Periphery Eve 1/4 mile The primary service core of San Luis Obispo is defined as the area north of South Street, east of Highway 101, west of Johnson Street, and south of Foothill Boulevard. Within this core area, stops should be placed every other block. All areas outside of this core are considered peripheral, with the exception of the Cal Poly campus. In outlying zones, there should be 4 to 5 stops per ' mile. San Luis Obispo's existing stop network meets or exceeds these standards in almost all cases. While bus stop placement standards provide system-wide guidelines, stop placement should be considered on a site-specific basis. Where special circumstances warrant additional stops, such as at a major trip generator, additional stops should be installed, as per customer requests or at the ' discretion of the Transit Manager. Conversely,the Transit Manager may choose not to place stops in areas of extremely low density,such as the southern and western areas of San Luis Obispo. ' Once the general location of a service stop has been determined, the exact placement of the stop relative to the nearest intersection needs to be addressed. There are a number of factors which influence the ultimate siting of a bus stop, including: adjacent land use, pedestrian access, ' intersection geometry, turning movement volumes, whether the bus will be taming at the intersection, and physical constraints. "Near-side" placement is where a bus stop is located just before an intersection. This type of stop placement allows passengers to board and alight while the bus is stopped at a traffic light,thus minimizing delays associated with boarding and lighting. "Far-side" stop placement is where a bus stop is located just after the intersection. This type of stop placement encourages a smoother flow of automobile traffic by not blocking right-turning vehicles. A third alternative, "mid-block" stop placement, is occasionally utilized when stops are ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 90 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report located near major trip generators. A summary of the major advantages and disadvantages of these bus stop locations is provided in Table 5-6. Table 5-6 Comparative Analysis of Bus Stop Locations Near-side - Minimizes interference when traffic is - Increases conflicts with right-turning vehicles Stop heavy on the far side of the intersection - May result in stopped buses obscuring . Allows passengers to access buses closest curbside traffic control devices and crossing to crosswalk pedestrians - Results in the width of the intersection - May cause sight distance to be obscured for being available for the driver to pull away vehicles stopped to the right of the bus from curb . May block the through lane during peak . Eliminates the potential for double parking period with queuing buses - Allows passengers to board and alight - Increases sight distance problems for crossing while the bus is stopped at a red light pedestrians - Provides driver with the opportunity to look for oncoming traffic, including other buses with potential passengers Far-side Stop - Minimizes conflicts between right turning May result in the intersections being blocked vehicles and buses during peak periods by stopping buses - Provides additional right turn capacity by May obscure sight distance for crossing making curb lane available for traffic vehicles - Minimizes sight distance problems on May increase sight distance problems for approaches to intersection crossing pedestrians - Encourages pedestrians to cross behind the Can cause a bus to stop far side after stopping bus for a red light, which interferes with both bus - Creates shorter deceleration distances for operations and all other traffic buses since the bus can use the intersection - May increase number of rear-end accidents to decelerate since drivers do not expect buses to stop again - Results in bus drivers being able to take after stopping at a red light advantage of the gaps in traffic flow that - Could result in traffic queued into intersection are created at signalized intersections when a bus is stopped in travel lane Mid-block -Minimizes sight distance problems for - Requires additional distance for no-parking Stop vehicles and pedestrians restrictions -May result in passenger waiting areas - Encourages patrons to cross street at mid- experiencing less pedestrian congestion block(jaywalking) • Increases walking distance for patrons I crossing at intersections Source:Texas Transportation lustitute,ICRP Report 14:Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops. Transportation Research Board,National Academy Press:Washington D.C., 1996,p.21. In order to simplify the boarding and alighting process and to standardize stop location as much as possible, San Luis Obispo Transit should try to install near-side bus stops. However, site- Short Range Transit Plan Page 91 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' specific street and traffic conditions must be considered when deciding on the exact placement of ' individual bus stops. Where sidewalks exist, all San Luis Obispo bus stops should connect to them for maximum bike ' and pedestrian accessibility. Similarly, if sidewalks are present, curb cuts should be installed per the City's ADA accessibility standards to allow easy access to bus stops by wheelchair passengers. ' 5.5.4 Service Stop Improvement Recommendations ' A rigorous system for prioritizing facility improvements was developed that quantifies the need for improvements based on daily boardings and existing conditions at each bus stop. The approach and major results are outlined in this section. A more detailed discussion of this methodology can be found in Appendix C. The basic approach was to examine each stop and rate it according to three factors. These factors ' were: • How many passengers boarded at the stop, • The presence,condition,and relative importance of facilities and amenities, ' • Whether the stop's facilities adequately met the demand. o Of San Luis Obispo Transits 150 service stops, 34 (23%) are ranked as "moderate" "highly" hi y„ ' needy. These service stops experienced moderate to significantly greater activity than they were equipped to handle and thus require additional facilities to meet the demonstrated passenger ' demand. Most of these cases require additional benches or shelters, although several stops also require supplementary amenities such as trash cans,new signs,or night lighting. ' Table 5-7 lists the recommended improvements for existing transit service stops that qualified as "moderate”to "highly" needy. The table also includes estimated improvement costs based on the consultant's analysis. The costs listed below do not include installation costs and are based on ' industry-wide averages. Therefore, the cost estimates should only be used as general guidelines, as prices will vary among manufacturers. ' Table 5-7 Recommended Service Stop Improvements Estimated Priority Stop Locates Needs' Cost= ' 1 Mill California north Two Benches,Shelter,Trash Can $16,000 2 Min A,Johnson Two Benches,Shelter $15,000 3 Foothill La Entrada Clear Obstacles,Two Benches $5,000 ' 4 Grand McCollum Bench,Shelter $12,500 5 LOVR A Oceanaire Two Benches $5.000 ' 6 LOVR Oceanaire west Bench,Shelter $12.500 7 Mill 9 Grand Bench.Shelter $12500 8 North Chorro Ferrini Bench,Shelter,Trash Can $13,500 Short Range Transit Plan Page 92 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 Estimated t 1"Hority Stop Location Needs t Costt 9 North Chorro g Foothill Clear Obstacles,New Sign,Bench,Shelter $13,000 10 Ramona Q,Palomar Night Lightingz.Trash Can $1.000* ' 11 Tassa'ara A Ramona Two Benches.Shelter $15,000 12 Cal Po .Build' Bench $2,500 13 Cal Po (Mott Gym) Route Map,Trash Can $1,500 t 14 Cal Po (University Union Trash Can,Night L' $1.000* 15 Foothill Casa Trash Can $1,000 16 Foothill Q Chorro Trash Can.Night L' $1.000* ' 17 Grand Abbott Trash Can $1,000 18 LOVR Diablo east Bench $2,500 ' 19 LOVR A Los Verdes Bench $2.500 20 LOVR A Madonna Bench $2,500 21 LOVR A,Madonna west Bench $2,500 ' 22 Madonna Oceansire south Shelter $10.000 23 Mill A,Johnson north Sign,Information Number $750 24 Mill QD Park Shelter,Trash Can $11,000 ' 25 Orcutt @ Fernwood Bench.Shelter $12.500 Santa Rosa Marsh Clear Obstacles,Si Information Number $750 26 0 Total $171000 ' NOTES: ' These are the needs as determined by the bus stop standards.Which amenities are actually installed will be subject to funding and the discretion of the Transit Manager and Public Works Director. r When possible bus stops will be installed at lighted locations. if that is not possible. lighting will be provided at the City's ' discretion, using discretionary funding. Because the cost of installing night lighting varies significantly relative to the service stop's proximity to electrical power,the price of night lighting was not included in the above estimates. D Cost estimates do not include the cost of installation. ' 5.5.5 Installation of Additional Service Stops ' In addition to modifications to existing stops, the proposed bus stop placement standards presented in Section 5.5.3 require the addition of several stops.The route recommendations made ' in the service plan also require the addition of several bus stops. This section outlines the number, placement, and cost of these additional stops, focusing first on necessary improvements to the existing route network, then proceeding to improvements based on future route changes. It is ' recommended that all new service stops be installed as Type 2 bus stops to save cost, but are intended to be gradually upgraded over time based on the level of ridership they experience and the level of available funds programmed in the Capital Plan in Section 6.3. ' Based on the stop placement standards presented in Table 5-7,fourteen bus stops should be added to San Luis Obispo Transit's existing route network. Table 5-8 lists these bus stops by ' intersection,including their suggested bus stop type and projected cost. ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 93 I 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Table 5-8 Additional Service Stops,Existing Routes ' Intersection Routes Stop T Estimated CosP Foothill &California 2, 3,4, 5, 6 2 $3,250 Montaiban& Santa Rosa 1,2,3,6 1 $600 ' Walnut& Santa Rosa b 2,3,6 1 $600 Broad&Palm 1,2, 6 2 $3,250 Broad&Pismo 1 2 $3,250 ' Chorro&Palm 1,2,3,6 1 $600 Chorro&Pismo 3 1 $600 Pismo&Ni omo 2 1 $600 ' Broad&High 1 1 $600 Hi era&High 2, 6 1 $600 ' South&Woodbridge 4, 5 1 $600 Orcutt P Tiburon Way 3 1 $600 Orcutt Hansen 3 1 $600 ' Orcutt McMillan 1 2 $3,250 TOTAL $19,000 NOTES:'Cost estimates do not include the cost of installation. ' Several service stops need to be added to facilitate the proposed route changes outlined in the service plan. Most of these additional stops are due to New Route 6, which has two loops ' traveling in opposite directions from the Cal Poly campus. As a result, several stops need to be installed across the street from existing stops to serve the new direction of travel. Four stops need ' to be added for the New Route 6. Three stops also need to be added to the New Route 2, to accommodate the additional service provided to Auto Park Way. These stops are listed in Table 5-9,along with their routes, stop type,and estimated cost. ' Table 5-9 Additional Service Stops,New Routes Intersection Route Stop Type Estimated Cost` ' Grande(Vista Grande 6 2 $3,250 Cal Poly(Mustang Stadium 6 2 $3,250 California A Stafford 6 2 $3,250 ' California(North of Hathwa 6 2 $3,250 LOVR Calle Joaquin east 2 1 $600 LOUR @ Calle Joaquin west 2 1 $600 ' Auto Park Way 2 2 $3,250 TOTAL $17,450 ' NOTES:'Cost estimates do not include the cost of installation. Several service stops will also need to be added to be decommissioned based on the proposed Iroute changes. Three stops will be decommissioned due to changes on the New Route 2 and the ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 94 I City of San Luis Obispo Final Report New Rowe 6. These stops are listed in Table 5-10, along with their current routes. Figure 5-14 summarizes the changes to the bus stop network. Table 5-10 Decommissioned Service Stops Highland(ED,Mt. Bishop(south) Ifipera P,Carmel 6 Prado (a),Access Drive 2 5.5.6 Summary and Implementation Schedule The total cost for upgrading existing bus stop facilities, adding bus stops on existing routes, and adding stops on new routes is estimated to be $207,450. Itis recommended that first priority be given to the installation of new stops on new routes, then to the addition of new stops on existing routes, then to upgrading existing facilities at existing stops. This phased approach will ensure that the Service Stop Master Plan is coordinated.with the service plan.recommendations. An implementation schedule for additional bus stop additions and improvements is presented in the capital plan in Chapter 6. Figure 5-14 maps the location of all service stop changes associated with the Service Stop Master Plan. Short Range Transit Plan Page 95 i r Y AMS -H may,J.��..Y2' ��•wr2:s: n't�' -•.v�� T,'�7i �{_ s"ffa r:•r �`9.,r. ..tet' Sys r''st��i` ��"� '�� y r JRr �� R�.`r T�,Y�f••YhO NqY? ry R.,21 Y.K �. /.�c i � - ..� \.'�W1� F'�'. �I '�.. „�fi may a-•x . . "�' r. � .tr • � ji L s wF aT. l f/ a:-t. +� -rte 1. ' iy�•r�{( f j f i w '�.�'��i='�-.}r-//`��V"m.�`'' 1 1� �� $.f v--fit•"` r rY I ... .�� y"' 3§'J.�•z•+J-�In(' '. • rr ^..tom 41 �•t� � /,�. a T�� -,may, 'f-'jl.�a =\��? L::�VltJ�-V _`�-1'�`-'jvc- ��y ��"�rr r, l.\r+i-[-e -_ `��i,� �•r-.y.��•M »� - , J. '•�feiZ�% Z'1.'� at�. � Y fj 'Y•.0 Sf..�.U��.. �,y�_� •.. / }.�h �■ �jr'{, e:� .eye��y� � }"EI-�y-� � ,�'�"� s r �y • • •• 0.i 5 0"3i5-�`-U 0:.� Miles 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report CHAPTER SIX ' IlVIPLEMENTATION,FINANCIAL,AND CAPITAL PLANS This chapter presents the implementation, fmancial, and capital plans to guide San Luis Obispo Transit in each fimctional area. The financial and capital plans incorporate the service changes recommended in Chapter Five. 6.1 Implementation Plan Table 6-1 presents a phased implementation plan for the recommendations outlined in Chapter 5. ' It can be seen that most service changes will be implemented in the short term,between FY 03/04 and FY 04/05. However several recommendations are scheduled for the mid and long term. ' Table 6-1 Proposed Implementation Schedule Implementation ' Year Change 2003 Implement New Route 2 Implement New Route 6 ' Eliminate Route 1 Service to Cal Poly Agriculture Building Eliminate Northern Loop of Route 3 and Revise Schedule 2004 Implement Evening Service ' Downtown Trolley Schedule Chane and Service Extension Implement Downtown Trolley Fare ' Imp] ent Trolley Surcharge Implement Flashpass Program Add Service Coverage Performance Measure ' 2005 Monitor Development Activity Improve Core Service to High School 2006 Increase Fare Revenue ' Evaluate Increasing Paratransit Costs 2007 Evaluate Potential for Subscription Service ' 2008 Evaluate Long-term Potential for Limited Stop or Express Service 2009 Evaluate Potential for Demand Responsive Service 2010 ' 2011 Evaluate Potential for Cross-town Service 2012 _ ' 6.2 Financial Plan Table 6-2 forecasts operating and capital expenses and revenue sources for the life of this plan. Expenses are based on projected ridership and annual service miles, assuming that all service recommendations are implemented. Total annual operating cost was estimated using the cost per 1 Short Range Transit Plan Page 97 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' mile rate stipulated in the City's contract with First Transit, plus the annual lump sum paid to ' First Transit. Annual increases in the mileage rate and monthly lump sum, as stipulated by the service contract, were included. After FY 04/05, the contract with the City will be renegotiated and will likely result in higher costs than forecasted due to increasing fuel, labor, and insurance costs. The total annual administrative costs were estimated from FY 02/03 administrative expenses and a 3% annual increase for inflation. Total expenses are the sum of operating and administrative expenses. ' To forecast ridership,a 5% growth in ridership was assumed during FY 03/04 and FY 04/05, as a result of the short-term service recommendations. After that, a 3% increase in ridership is i assumed The reported totals for annual revenue hours and costs take into account all recommended service changes. San Luis Obispo Transit's revenues are expected to meet or exceed expenses for the life of this plan. Overall, revenues resulting from increased fare revenue, a stable FTA apportionment, and slightly increasing TDA funds are expected to grow at an average of 5.6% per year, while i expenses incurred through increased service provision and capital outlays are only expected to grow at an averag of 2.8%per year. This indicates that if the funding environment remains stable as predicted, the City of San Luis Obispo will have more than adequate funds to continue to maintain and improve its transit operations, as receommended. It is important to note that this financial plan is careful balanced to prevent adverse impact to the City's general fund, to keep San Luis Obispo Transit solvent, and to ensure the system has adequate funds to continue to ' expand and improve its services over time. 1 1 i iShort Range Transit Plan Page 98 1 1 _ O O L N 1 aw DD M O b M b M M O\ O w O r e h a0 �'1 r N n N V7 O N w � N - O o0 T O\ a 00 r.6M9 69 6N9 � 6�R � � 6A ^ � �^ �J? r 00 � V� 69 6N9 � N9 � 69 a' C O Y ' N M R D, M r N uw vl� r O 0 0 O M' �O V M_ a e -r O '4 in e LL N 69 69 69 fH 69 N r f M N 69 3 Q Fit b4 � 69 F/5 69 Q 'G O � 00 �o - M O N Q` 00 a M ON Ut 00 O N WI 00 I0N M C, Io O e v c a o � O In In a, 0o ft o x a, In o m c m M In M e-i O' o0 0 oo ra; a 'G M � r d N y O O 00 O, 00 O r 1O M r 00 bol r oo a t?, > y N In 6A 6R 6A V) 6r5 r 69 FVS O �D O �O CITV fig ,L _ Y 69 � 69 W) bon L d 0 7 7 r O r T N r a ' O IO M O� O N In O. r N e v. 0% MO O O� �O �c M to O h v1 ON O 00 N T N e O 00 v~Ui y In 00 O� p C a r oo In O N 110 M N a N - C\ O r '69 >1 N N N 64 - In 00 r 69 N O In � N b in F 69 69 H9 V/ 69 I O b e O a, O, N a M T N O O 3 e - N In ON O M In IO N M T n p O r vw N O N In O w In O e t o •- n * oo T In r N O r IO M 10 Os IN �z a r N N N r �+ N 6N9 69 6�9 os O^ M69 mM V' NVi i L N N G7i 69 U4 69 V3 69 toL IZ r- v v a o N x a v, o ^ v, o n N e a oo a 69 e c o o NO r- CP7 ID C o r o r vi M .. .o N In n, O r -IT ID v O N rO N a a N -O 00 v, N •V N 6N9 69 1.0 fin 69 G's r'lO, Ifs a9 00 66 K C p . N N 69 49 6H FA G6 x CO C d L w O N M 1n O b ON M ON a0 O O n � R m O O� O` O O o OI-C ri �M�pp N .� �G 00 7 00 �O 3 C N N 669 - e 00 69 N 00 M f. r M M fH U N L 69 69 H9 69 69 _ 6q N N 6A L L GIs 69 O a 00 O O 00 O r a ,p N eo e r In m O a, In ao e h oo a 'ZO -00 T d. ON O Qn In O � r1 N if, r 00 O 00 N =O M h e O M �O N N °o M O� r 6•i U N 6NA 69 b9 F/9 V^ 6A a64 44 V3 6H 69 L d C 'C 00 cTC F 7 0 00 N O r In O b oo OD O rM O ,lam cC0 •� 3 In M O h e x e r 69 - 00 V M O M Uw v, � M O x N r �V) O 7 00 r M O� O r" r N in +•1 a ` N N N 6N9 C Ne pN0p0 oo �o T L e ft �O x O� x y 69 69 'e FA R 69 69 \O N O M MfA O = 69 V) 69 Ge 666 F N O O N e v O ao M a O\ O O G O O N O r Q\ ON ON O a1 In M 01 M O e t M b 1n ON r In e N O, 1n cc rn F �O 7 n o0 �p 00 o vj e N N 1� 1n r �' c0 0p C R N M o e v, = �c ON a oo �0 .. - - 00 N N 69 a o0 9 M 69 69 In v eq 66 - 69 N N L F 69 61') 66 bl9 6A H �•+ c N L y Ot c � c � v, •� E G � c � as x � � o A cC4 d u ? c C r o o > o v > > W N E s D. aUi o=0 Q = L V G�z] C uFNi V1 H a c w UU� ce 4. F Fn U F v F' F F 6 Q 0 a>i o City of Sam Luis Obispo Final Report 63 Capital Plan Table 6-3 displays San Luis Obispo Transit's capital improvement and vehicle replacement plan for FY 2004 to FY 2013. Four vehicles are scheduled to be retired and ten are scheduled to be ' replaced. The vehicles to be retired_are all manufactured by Orion and were purchased in either 1982 or 1984. Two vehicles will need to be replaced in FY 2006, one in FY 2007, two in FY 2009, two in FY 2010, and three in FY 2013. All vehicles scheduled to be replaced will be replaced with 40' Gillig coaches or similar models of a different manufacturer. The vehicle replacement plan was designed to accomidate the fiscal limiations of San Luis ' Obispo Transit while still maintaining a healthy, active fleet. The City should begin applying for funds to cover the replacement costs for vehicles one fiscal year before their replacement date, so that adequate fiords will be available as needed. San Luis Obispo has three primary funding sources for capital purchases: San Luis Obispo's Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF), TDA, and FTA 5307. It should also be noted that in 2007, additional capital costs may be incurred as a result of changes to CARB emmissions standards that could require technological upgrades or 1 additional vehicle replacements. Table 6-3 also schedules all necessary bus stop additions and modifications, as recommended in the Bus Stop Master Plan. Priority is given to adding new service stops that will result from service plan changes. Second priority is given to added new stops on existing routes based on the recommended bus stop placement policies of Chapter 5. All new service stops will intially be ' designed to Type 2 service standards to save cost,but will be gradually upgraded over time based on the level of ridership they experience and as funds become available. Due to due to the large capital outlays required for vehicle replacements between FY 2004 and FY 2010, all ' improvements to existing stops and upgrades for new stops are scheduled for FY 2011. This schedule will allow San Luis Obispo Transit to remain solvent while upgrading its service stop facilities. IShort Range Transit Plan Page 100 � \ k § § k _ a � � k � k § 02 § % ; ■ � � % ~ 2 k # � o � - cr, � a § ¢ cc 2 ƒ � § $ _ £ � • B a ® C6 i's a � C m $ ( u - - 2 S � � b � 00 � E 2 � 2 e � ■ \ a5q E \ k / § k ca A • K� & ƒ § 2 \ ƒ kkcc / § ( g O $ % & t IaQmg ) £ 2 ; z 12 § / k 0 Jul> = t „ w � City of San Luis Obispo Final Report APPENDICES Appendix A—Inventory of Service Stop Amenities Appendix B—Observed Daily Ridership and Activity Score by Service Stop ' Appendix C—Methodology for Service Stop Facility Improvement Plan Appendix D—White Paper—SLO Transit Flashpass Program Air Mitigation Model Appendix E—SLO Transit Charter Service Policy ' Appendix F—SLO Transit Public Hearing Procedures Appendix G—SLO Transit Fare Policy 1 1 r i Short Range Transit Plan Page 102 ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Appendix A Inventory of Transit Service Stop Amenities ' (From SLOCOG 2000 Bus Stop Facility Inventory) o .e u g a 1L +� StopLocati4m a ° _ ° a 'a a ® 'M zi tAirport Drive(SLO Good N Y 2 Fair N N Y N I N Y None Near Amtrak Station Good Y Y 1 Good Y Y Y Y Y Y None Mid ' A Bishop toward City HallGood N Y 0 None N N N N Y Y None Near A Bishop toward Laurel Lane Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Far Augusta @ Gerdy toward Ci Good N Y 1 Good N N N N N Y Tree New ' Augusta Laurel Cabrillo Child Can Poor N N 1 Fair N Y N N N Y None Near AuMta Lanrel Judson Terrace Good Y Y 1 Good Y Y N N Y Y None Far Augusta @ San Marcos toward Lanrel lane Good N Y 0 None N N N N N N None Far Augusta a Sydney toward Laurel Lane Fair N N 1 Good N N N N N Y Shrubs Near BMR Q LOVR Good N Y 0 None N N N N Y Y None Mid Broad Ca itolio Good N Y 1 Fair N N N N Y Y None Mid ' Broad Candr'B Fair N Y 1 Fair N N N N N Y None New Broad Fiero Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y Mailboxes Far ' Broad A Funston Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Mid Broad Q Humbert Good N N I Fair N Y N N N Y None Near Broad .Idsy Good N N 0 None N N N N N Y None Fm ' Broad @ Marigold Good N Y 3 Good Y Y N N N Y None Mid Broad Q Orcutt(Staples) Good Y Y 1 Good Y Y N N Y Y None Mid Broad ,Roekview Good N Y 1 Good Y Y N N Y Y Branches Mid ' Broad A Santa Barbara toward City HaM Good N Y 1 Fair N N N N N Y None Far Broad aSween Fair N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Mid Cal Poly @ Mustang Stadium Good Y Y I Good Y Y N N N Y None Mid ' Cal Poly Ag.Building Good N N I Good N Y N Y Y Y None Mid Cal Poly Graphic Arts toward California St. Good Y Y I Fair Y Y N N Y Y None Mid ' Cal Poly Graphic Arts toward City Hall Good Y Y I Fair Y Y N N Y Y None Mid Cal Poly Mott G toward City HallGood Y Y 1 Good Y Y Y N Y Y None Mid Cal PolY Mustang Stadium Fair Y Y I Fair Y Y N N Y Y None Mid ' Cal Poly University Union Good Y Y 1 Fair Y Y N N Y Y None Mid California Taft Good N Y N None N N N N N Y None Far Casa Deseret Siem Vista Hospital) Good N Y 1 Good N N N N Y Y None Far ' Casa Deseret toward Cal Poly) Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Near Chorro Ferrini Good Y Y , 1 Poor YN N N N Y None Near Chorro(d Foothill toward nd) Poor N Y 1 Good N fY N N N Y None Far ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 103 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report o � � o II V tS O v II t a $ g' Stop Location =° ' o c , si it it w m z Chorro Islay Poor N N I Fair N N N N I Y Y None Near ' Chorro Marsh toward Ci Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Near Chorro @ Monterey Fair N N 0 None N N N N Y Y None Far t Descanso ,Del Rio Good N N 0 None N N N N Y Y None Near Foothill Blarney toward Cal Poly) Poor N N 0 None N N N N N N None New -Foothill Blarney toward LOVR Fair N N 0 None N N N N N N None Far ' Foothill Q,Chorro(Mobil Station Fair Y Y 1 Good Y Y N N N Y None Far FooddH Cuests toward LOVR Good N Y 1 Fair N N N N N Y None Near Foothill @ Ferrini toward LOVR Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Near ' Foothill Q Ferrini toward Santa Rosa St Good N Y I Fair N N N N N Y Branches Near Foothill IA Entrada toward Cal Poly) Fair N Y I Fair N N N N N Y Cables Far Foothill Rosita toward LOVR Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Near tFooddll ,Tassa'ara toward Santa Rosa St Good N Y I Fair N N N N N Y None Far Foothill University rare Fair Y Y 2 Good Y Y N N N Y None Mid ' Grand Abbott toward Cal Polyl Good Y Y I Good Y Y N N Y Y None Near Grand McCollum toward Cal Poly) Fair N Y I Good N N N N N Y None Far Grand Q Pacheco Elements (McCollum) Good N Y 0 None N N N N Y Y Branches Near ' Grand A Visa Grande Restauraut rats Good Y Y 1 Good Y Y N Y Y Y None Mid Grand Wilson toward City HallFair N Y 0 None N N N N Y Y Shrubs Near Highland ,Cdesa toward Patricia Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Near ' Efighland Jeffrey toward Patricia Fair N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None New EHOUnd A Mt Bishop award Cal Po Good N N 0 None N N N N Y Y None Far Highland Mt Bishop toward Hwy 1 Good N N 0 None N N Y N Y N None Near ' Witguera Bridge Cal Trans Good N Y 1 Good N N N N N Y None NO EUXacra ,Carmd Good N Y 0 None N N N N Y Y None Mid ' HiPuem @ Chumash Trader toward City HaM Fav N Y I Good Y N N N N Y None Far Eri?uers Granada Fav N Y I Fav N N N N N Y None Near Mantra Q Hind toward City Haff Good N Y 2 Good Y N N N N Y None Near Hi era Ma ria Good Y Y 2 Good Y Y N N N Y None Near Hizuera Margarita toward Ci Hall Good N Y 1 Good N Y N N N Y None Far ' era Prado I toward Ci HaB Good Y Y 2 Fair N N N N N Y None Near Higuers Prado II toward aty HallGood N Y I Good N Y N N Y Y None For Higuers Silver aty Fair N Y 1 Fair N N N N N Y Now Mid ' Higners South toward Ci Good N Y 1 Good N Y N N Y Y None Mid EFMaen ,South toward Prado Good N Y I Good N Y N N Y Y None New I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 104 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report d a � ° Stop Location A z Elioen Q.Suburban toward City Hall Fair N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Far ' Hieuerm Suburban toward LOVR Good N Y 2 Good Y N N N N Y None Near Higuerm 0 Tank Farm Fair N N 2 Good Y N N N N Y None Far ' Johnson Bishop toward City Hao Good Y Y 1 Good Y Y N N Y N None Far Johnson ,Bishop toward Laurel Lane Fair N Y 1 Good Y Y N N N N None Near Johnson(a)Gregory Cedar Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y Pole Mid ' - Johnson Q Linde reach Hospital) Fair N Y 1 Fair N N N N N Y None Far Johnson Lime toward City HallFair N N 1 Fair N N N N N Y None Nur Johnsen 0 Marsh toward City HallPoor N Y 1 Fair N N N N N Y None Near ' Laurel @ Camden a Crar/Cal Trans Good N Y 1 Good N N N N N Y None Near Laurel Cc Laurel Lane Market Fair N Y I Good N N N N N Y None Mid Laurel @Southwood toward OrcuttGood Y Y 2 Good Y Y N N N Y None Far ' LOVR 0,Descanso toward Foo Fair N Y 3 Fair N Y N N N Y None Far LOUR()a Descanso toward Madonna Fair N Y 1 Fair N N N N N Y None Far ' LOVR(a Diablo toward FoothillGood N Y 0 None N N N N N Y Branches Far LOUR na Diablo toward Madonna Fair N Y 0 None N N N N N Y Branches Far LOVR Q Home Depot Good N Y 1 Good Y N N N N Y None Mid ' LOVR A La (LagunaMiddle School Poor N Y 1 Good N Y N N N Y None Mid LOVR Lagunatoward Madonna Good N Y I Fair N N N N Y Y Pole Mid LOVR Los Verdes towardera Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y Branches Nfid LOVR Los Verdes(toward Hwy 101 Good N Y I Good N N N N Y Y None Mid LOVR Madonna Kia Good Y Y I Good Y Y N N N Y None Mid LOVR A Madonna toward Home Depot) Fair Y Y 1 Good Y Y N N N Y None Mid LOVR Q Oceansire toward FoothillFair Y Y I Good Y N N N N Y None Far LOVR Q Oceanaire toward Madonna Fair N Y I Fair N N N N N Y None Mid f LOVR Q Valle Vista toward FoothID Fair N N 0 None N N N N N N None Near LOVR Q Valle Vesta toward Madonna Fair N N 0 None N N N N N N None Near Madonna Q El Mercado Good N Y I Good Y Y N N N Y None Mid ' Madonna ),Hwy 101 toward era Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Mid Madonna LOVR Fair Y Y 2 Good Y N Y N N Y None Mid Madonna Q Oceanaire toward Hwy 101 Fair N Y I Good N N N N N Y None Near ' Madonna ,Oceanaire toward LOVR Fair N Y 2 Good Y N N N N Y Y Far Madonna Q,US 101 toward LOVR Fair N Y 2 Fair N N N N N Y None Far Marsh Q Archer toward City HallGood N Y 1 Good N N Y N N Y None Near IMarsh Q Broad toward City HallFair N Y 1 Fair N Y N N N Y None Near Marsh(a)Chorro toward City HallGood N Y 2 Good N Y N N Y Y None Far I IShort Range Transit Plan Page 105 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report � g d D D UE t, U rM w s�S 1O 6.C s v i a StopLocation G Marsh Q Hi era toward City Hap Good N Y I Fair N N N N N Y None Far ' Marsh A Johnson Good N Y 1 Good Y Y N N N Y None Near Marsh Osos toward City Hap Fair N Y 1 Fair N N N N Y Y None Far ' Mill 0 California toward Cal P Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None For MM Q,California toward City Hap Fair N Y 0 None N N N N Y Y None Far Mill Grand Fair Y Y I Good Y Y N N N Y None Near ' Will Johnson toward Cal P Good N N 0 None N N N N N Y Sijm Near Mill Cap Johnson toward Ci Good N Y 0 None N N N N Y Y None Far MM Park Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Near ' Monterey Q Santa Rosa toward City REM Good N N 0 None N N N N Y Y None Near Montero (a,Toro toward City Hap Fair N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Near Marra Can toward Santa Rosa St Good N Y 0 None N N N N Y Y None Near ' Niomo era Fair N Y 1 Fair N Y N N Y Y None Mid Olive D,Santa Rosa Jack in the Bo: Good N Y 0 None N N N N Y Y None Mid ' Orcutt QJohnson toward Orcutt Good N Y I Fair N N N N N N Mailbox Near OrcnnA Laurel toward Orcutt Good I N I Y •0 None N N N N N Y None Far Patricia Craig Good N Y 0 None N N N N Y Y None Near ' Patricia FoothiB Poor N Y I Fair N N N N N Y Branches Near Patricia Foothill Good N Y 1 Fair N N N N N Y Branches Near Perfamo Dd Rio Fair N Y I Fair N N N N Y N None Near ' Pismo Archer Good N Y 0 None N N N N N N Sbrobs Near Pismo a,Carmel Fair N Y 0 None N N N N Y Y None Mid Prado Access Good N Y 1 Good N Y N N N Y None Near ' Promenade Fair Y Y 2 Good Y Y Y N Y Y None Mid Ramona A Palomar Good Y Y 1 Good Y Y N N N Y None Far ' Santa Barbara Cbnrch toward Amtrak Good N Y I Good N N N N N Y Branches Near Santa Barbara Q Church toward Bron Good N Y 1 Fair N N N N N Y Now Mid Santa Barbara toward Amtrak Good N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Mid ' Santa Barbara toward Bros Good N Y 1 Good N N N N N Y None Far Santa Rosa Q Buchan tchdl Park Good N Y 1 Good N N N N Y Y Pole Mid Santa Rosa A Bachon toward City Hap Good N Y 1 Good N N N N N Y None Near ' Santa Rosa Hi era toward City Hap Good N Y 1 Fair N Y N N N Y None Near Santa Rosa Leff toward City H2W Fair N Y 1 Fair N N N N N Y None Far Santa Rosa 6D,Marsh toward Amtrak Good N Y I Good N Y N N N Y Pole Far ' Santa Rosa Meinecke toward FoothillGood N Y I Good N N N N N Y None Mid Santa Rosa Marra toward Ci Good N Y 1 Good N Y N N N Y None Far 1 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 106 ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1F < a3 7. i .V w 8, s 0 »�estl• , "r.7t, Spy iii e� .,�:�- .y tied ,� Y .0 .:a1 w ` � St ,tion _ .. ba O II{. ' Santa Rosa Murraytoward Foothill Fav N Y I Good N N N I N N Y Branches Mid Santa Rosa Park Good N Y I Poor N N N I N Y N None Mid South Beebee Fair N Y 2 Good Y Y N N Y Y None Mid ' South 6D.Beebee(Greyhound) Good N Y 2 Good Y N N N Y N None Far South Q Broad toward ens Fair N Y 1 Good N N N N Y Y None Far South(a) toward Broad Fav N Y 0 None N N N N N Y None Mid ' South A Meadow Good N Y I Good N N N N N N None Mid Southwood Laurel Lane Good N Y I Good N N N N N Y None Near ' Southwood Q Woodside Poor N Y 1 Fair N N N N N N None New Tank Farm Brookpine None N N 0 None N N N N N N None NA Tank Farm HoDvhock Fav Y Y 1 Good Y Y N N N Y None Near ' Tsuk Farm R Pointsetda Fav N Y 0 None#NN N N N Y None Far Tank Farm Wavertm Good N Y 1 FavN N N N None Far Tassa'ara 64 Ramona Good N Y 0 NN N N Y None Near ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 107 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Appendix B Observed Daily Ridership and Activity Score By Service Stop Score, Airport Drive(SLO Airport) 0 1 1 Augusta (Cabrillo Child Care) 14 2 2 Augusta (Judson Terrace) 21 3 3 Augusta g Bishop 3 1 1 1 Augusta(�,D Bishop(north) 1 1 1 Augusta (a-,) Gerds 9 2 2 Augusta @D San Marcos 4 1 1 Augusta (a-) Sydney 0 1 1 Broad(Old Von's) 1 1 1 Broad('0,Cuadill 12 2 2 Broad(?D, Fiero 6 1 1 Broad Funston 2 1 1 Broad(p,Humbert 9 2 2 Broad(&,Islay 3 1 1 Broad(&, Marigold Center 0 1 1 Broad A Orcutt(Staples) 15 2 2 Broad(a),Rockview 0 1 1 Broad @ Santa Barbara 6 1 1 Broad @ Sweeney 15 2 2 Cal Poly(Ag.Building) 126 4 5 Cal Poly(Graphic Comm) 238 4 5 Cal Poly(Graphic Comm)(north) 238 4 5 Cal Poly(Mott Gym) 509 4 5 Cal Poly(Mustang Stadium) 30 4 4 Cal Poly(University Union) 383 4 5 Casa(&,Deseret 8 2 2 Central Coast Mall 21 3 3 Chorro A Islay 4 1 1 Chorro(a-,) Marsh 9 2 2 Chorro(a,)Monterey 0 1 1 Chorro A Upham 2 1 1 Descanso @,Del Rio 8 2 2 Foothill(A)Casa 86 5 5 Foothill(a),Chorro 106 5 5 Foothill(a),Cuesta 3 1 1 Foothill(a-)Ferrini 6 1 1 Foothill A) Foothill Phma 9 2 2 Foothill(a),La Entrada 38 4 4 Foothill @ Narrow Ct Foothill (a-),O'Connor Short Range Transit Plan Page 108 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Stop Location Boa s Service Type Adivity Score ' Foothill Patricia 6 1 1 Foothill Rosits 0 1 1 Foothill Tassa'ars 4 1 1 ' Foothill A University Square 10 2 2 Grand (Vista Grande 16 3 3 ' Grand Abbott 150 4 5 Grand g McCollum 40 4 4 Grand A,Pacheco 3 1 1 Grand @ Wilson 4 1 1 Highland Cuesta 2 1 1 Highland A Ferrini 0 1 1 ' Highland g Jeffery 1 1 1 Highland Mt.Bishop north 0 1 1 Highland Mt.Bishop 0 1 1 ' Highland g Patricia 1 1 1 Hi era Chumash Trailer Park 10 2 2 Hi era Silver Ci 7 2 2 ' Hi uera @ Bride Caltrans 1 1 1 Hi era Carmel 0 1 1 ' Hi era Granada 6 1 1 Hi era Hind 0 1 1 Hi uera @ Margarita east 13 2 2 ' Hi era Margarita 13 2 2 Hi era Prado 12 2 2 Hi era @ South 7 2 2 ' Hi era South rader Joe's 9 2 2 Hi era Suburban 0 2 2 Hi era Suburban(Food 4 Less 2 1 1 ' Hi era Tank Farm 11 1 1 Johnson Bishop west 13 2 2 Johnson Bishop 24 2 2 ' Johnson Gregory 3 3 3 Johnson Lizzie west 3 1 1 ' Johnson Lizzie 9 1 1 Johnson Marsh 23 2 2 Laurel Lane Crux G 10 3 3 I Laurel Lane Laurel Market 7 2 2 Laurel Lane P,Southwood 9 2 2 Los Osos Valley Road Los Verdes 0 2 2 ' Los Osos Valley Road @ Los Verdes 1 north 14 1 Los Osos Valley Road Descanso 10 2 2 ' Los Osos Valley Road Descanso east 30 2 2 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 109 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 4 ° »"&�''$ ,�St^ �' s �.SA'Sn" � ,> ..ie '" X, w m _,�� ,.. . .. 8oartl _ ry ce T e '„Activi ell” ' Los Osos VaHey Road Diablo west 1 4 4 Los Osos Valley Road Diablo 7 1 1 Los-Osos Valley Road Laguna - 12 2 2. ' Los Osos VaHey Road Laguna Lane 32 2 2 Los Osos Valley Road Madonna west 38 4 4 Los Osos Valley Road Madonna 61 4 4 Los Osos Vahey Road @ Oceanaire west 38 4 4 Los Osos Valley Road A Oceanaire 42 4 4 1 Madonna Carl's Jr. 0 4 4 Madonna Los Osos VaHey 25 1 1 Madonna Oceanaire south 19 3 3 1 Madonna Oceanaire 27 3 3 Madonna US 101 south 38 4 4 Madonna US 101 8 4 4 Marsh Archer 3 2 2 Marsh Broad 22 1 1 Marsh Chorro 4 3 3 Marsh Osos 0 1 1 Mill California north 2 1 1 Mill ap,California 67 1 1 Mill g Grand 115 5 5 Mill Johnson 91 5 5 Mill g Johnson 8 5 5 Mill @ Park 9 2 2 Monterey Santa Rosa 0 2 2 1 Monterey Toro 2 1 1 MurrayCasa 17 1 1 Ni mo Hi era 15 3 3 NipomoA Marsh 4 2 2 North Chorro Ferrini 88 1 1 North Chorro @ Foothill 35 5 5 IOrcutt Fernwood 34 4 4 Orcutt g Johnson 4 4 4 ' Osos Palm(City Hall 737 1 1 Patricia Craig 2 5 5 Perfumo Canyon Road A Del Rio 7 1 1 I Pismo A Archer 0 2 2 Pismo A Carmel 4 1 1 Prado @ Access Drive 0 1 1 ' Railroad Avenue rain Station 16 1 1 Ramona Palomar 295 3 3 Santa Barbara Church east 19 5 5 ISanta Barbara Church 8 3 3 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 110 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Stop Location Boardin2s Service Type Activity Score ' Santa Barbara High east 4 2 2 Santa Barbara A High 0 1 1 Santa Rosa P,Buchon east 13 1 1 ' Santa Rosa Buchon 7 2 2 Santa Rosa Hi uera 2 2 2 ' Santa Rosa Leff 13 1 1 Santa Rosa Marsh 5 2 2 Santa Rosa A Meineke 1 1 1 ' Santa Rosa g Mun-ay 1 1 1 South @ Beebee south 5 1 1 South @ Beebee 21 1 1 ' South Broad 13 3 3 South Q CypLess 0 2 2 South Kin south 5 1 1 ' South King 7 1 1 South Meadow 4 2 2 ' Southwood Laurel Lane 11 1 1 Southwood Woodside 9 2 2 Tank Farm Brookpine 1 2 2 Tank Farm Hollyhock 10 1 1 Tank Farm @ Poinsettia 8 2 2 Tank Farm P,Wavertree 6 2 2 ' Tassa'ara Ramona 64 1 1 Valle Vista 0 4 4 Valle Vista west 0 1 1 1 1 1 I I Short Range Transit Plan Page 111 1 City•of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Appendix C Methodology for Service Stop Facility Improvement Plan ' A rigorous system was developed that quantifies the need for facility improvements based on ' daily boardings and the existing conditions at each bus stop. This approach utilizes a multi-step ranking system. The first step in the process is to assign an Activity Score and a Facility Score to each stop. As discussed earlier, higher numbers of boardings corresponds to a higher activity ' score. Similarly,better facilities get a higher rating,up to a maximum score of 5. Using these two values a "Facility Needs Score" is calculated for every service stop in the San Luis Obispo Transit system. The Facility Needs Score is a number between -4 and 4, where negative numbers ' indicate stops that are under-equipped to handle the existing passenger load. Finally, the Facility Needs Score is compared to a table that identifies which service amenities should be added based on the level of ridership and the current stop facilities. Table A-1 illustrates the criteria by which ' the Facility Score is assigned. The scoring criteria for the Facility Score results from a combination of whether or not an ' amenity was present and how important it is to have the amenity. The score for each amenity at a stop was multiplied by an `importance factor,' the sum of these values for a stop gives the stop its intermediate score. Next the scores for all stops in the system were split into 5 equal groups, in ' the same manner as was used for the Activity Score. Finally, a value between 1 and 5 was assigned to each stop for its Facility Score. This scoring mechanism produces two scores that are then used to create a combined Needs Index Score. 1 Table A-1 Facility Scoring Criteria ' Importance Score Amenity Multiplier Present Absent Poor Fair Good Stop Placement 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 ' Time Schedule Of Stops 1.5 1 0 Night Lighting 1.25 1 0 Shelter 1.25 1 0 ' Information Phone# 1.25 1 0 One Or More Benches 1.25 1 0 Sidewalk Accessibility 1.25 1 0 ' Obstacles 1.25 1 0 Bench Condition 1 0.5 1 1.5 Sign Condition 1 0.5 1 1.5 ' Route Map I ri 0 Trash can 0.75 0 ' Bike Rack 0.75 0 Pa Phone 0.5 0 ' As before, a negative number indicates that there is more activity than facilities. A zero or positive number indicates that the facilities are adequate for the level of ridership experienced at that stop. For example,the stop on Airport Drive has a Facility Score of 4 and an Activity Score ' of 1. Subtracting the Activity Score from the Facility Score results in a combined Need Index of ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 112 ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' 3, indicating that the Airport Drive service stop is well equipped to handle the average activity it receives.Another example demonstrates a stop with greater ridership than facilities. The Cal Poly ' University Union stop received a Facility Score of 3 and an Activity Score of 5, resulting in a Needs Index of-2.This means that this stop is under-equipped to handle the activity it receives. ' Table A-2 lists all San Luis Obispo Transit service stops and their Activity, Facility, and Needs Index Scores. Stops with inadequate facilities are shaded for easy reference. Of San Luis Obispo ' Transit's 150 service stops, 34(23%)are ranked as"Moderate"to"Highly"needy. Table A-2 Facility,Activity,and Needs Index Scoring for All San Luis Obispo Transit Stops ' Stop Location Facility Activity Needs Index Description Airport Drive(SLO rt 4 1 3 More than Adequate Facilities Augwta Cabrfflo Child Care 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' A Judson Terrace 4 3 1 More than Adequare Facilities Augusta .Bishop 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Aa usta A Bishop north2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Augusta Gerds 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities Augusta A San Mareos 1 1 0 Adegiurte Facilities ' Augusta P.Sydney 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Broad Old Von's 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities Broad A Cuadffi 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Broad A Fiero 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Broad Funston 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Broad Humbert 3 2 1 More than A dequare Facilities ' Broad Way 1 1 0 Adequate Facilities Broad Q Marigold Center 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities Broad g Orcutt(Staples) 4 2 2 More than Adequate Facilities Broad R Rockview 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities Broad Santa Barbara 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities Broad Sweeney 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Cal Po Bao ' 4 5 -1 Moderate Need Cal Po (Graphic Comm 5 5 0 Adequate Facilities Cal Poi (Graphic Comm south 5 5 0 Ade ate Facilities ' Cal Po ott G 4 5 4 Moderate Need Cal Po Stadium 4 4 0 Adequate Facilities Cal Poly ' ersi Upon 4 5 -1 Moderate Need Casa A Deseret 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities Central Coast Mall 5 3 2 More than Adequate Facilities ' Chorro A Iday 3 1 2 More than Ade ate Facilities Chorro Marsh 2 2 0 Adequate Facilities Chorro Q Monterey 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Chorro Upham 1 1 0 Adequate Facilities Descanso Del Rio 2 2 0 Adequate Facilities FoothOl Casa 4 5 -1 Moderate Need I ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 113 ' Final Report City of San Luis Obispo eP ' Sta Location Facility Activitv Needs Index Descriytion ' Foothill .Chorro 4 5 -1 Moderate Need Foothill .Cuesta 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Foothill Ferrmi 1 1 0 Adequate Facilities ' Foothill Foothill Phva 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities Foothill @ La Entrada 2 4 2 Higher Need Foothill Q,Narrow Ct 2 1 1 More thmAdequate Facilities ' FoothM O'Connor 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Foothill Patricia 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Foothill Rosita 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Foothill @ Tassa'ara 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities Foothill University Square 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities Grand Esta Grande 5 3 2 More than Ade ate Facilities Grand Q Abbott 4 5 -1 Moderate Need Grand McCollum 2 4 -2 Higher Need Grand Pacheco 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Grand Q Wilson 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Hi hland Cuesta 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities ' ' bland Ferrini 1 1 0 Ade ate Facilities Highland Jeffery 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Highland Mt.Bishop 1 1 0 Adequate Facilities ' Highland @ Mt.Bisbo north 1 1 0 Adequate Facilities Highland @ Patricia 1 1 0 Adequate Facilities EUguera Chumash Trailer Park 3 2 1 More thanAdequare Facilities ' Hi uera Silver Ci 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities Elignera Bridge Caltrans 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Eliguera Carmel 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' ' uera Granada 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Higuera Hind 4 1 3 More than Adequate Facilities Higuera A Margarita east 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Higuera @ Margarita 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities Hig=ra Prado 3 2 1 More thanAdequale Facilities Higuera South 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Eftuera South(Trader Joe's 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities Elipuers Suburban 2 1 1 More than Ade ate Facilities ' Hizuera 9 Suburban(Food 4 4 1 3 More than Adequate Facilities Higners g Tank Farm 4 2 2 More than Adequate Facilities Johnson Bishop 4 2 2 More than Adequate Facilities ' Johnson Bishop west 3 3 0 Adequate Facilities Johnson Gregory 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Johnson Lime 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities ' Johnson UEde west 2 2 0 Adequate Facilities Johnson Marsh 3 3 0 Adequate Facilities Laurel Lane Cruz G 2 2 0 Adequate Facilities 1 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 114 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Stay Location Faeffity Activity Needs Index Descri tion ' Laurel Lane urel Market 3 2 1 More than A dequate Facilities Laurel Lane A Southwood 5 2 3 More than Adequate Facilities Los Osos VaHey Road Descanso 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Los Osos VaHey Road Descanso 4 1 3 More than Adequate Facilities Los Osos VaRty Road a Diablo 3 4 -1 Moderate Need Los Osos Valley Road Diablo 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Los Osos VaHey Road Laguna 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Los Osos VaHey Road e 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities Los Osos Valley Road 0 Los 3 4 -1 Moderate Need ' Los Osos VaHey Road A Los 2 2 0 Adequate Facilities Los Osos VaHey Road A Madonna 3 4 -1 Moderate Need Las Osos Ve Road Madonna 3 4 -1 Moderate Need ' Los Osos Valley Road Q, 2 4 2 Higher Need Los Osos Vaty Road 4t 2 4 2 Higher Need ' Madonna Carl's Jr. 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities Madonna Al Los Osos VaHey 4 3 1 More than Adequate Facilities Madonna Oceanaire 3 3 0 Adequate Facilities Madonna A Oceanaire south 3 4 -1 Moderate Need Madonna US 101 4 4 0 Adequate Facilities Madonna US 101 south 4 2 2 More than Adequate Facilities ' Marsh A Archer 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities Marsh A Broad 3 3 0 Adequate Facilities Marsh Chorro 5 1 4 More than Adequate Facilities Marsh Osos 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities Mill California 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities MM A California north 2 5 -3 Highest Need ' MM @ Grand 3 S 2 Hi her Need MID Johnson 2 5 -3 H' est Need MM @ Johnson north 1 2 4 Moderate Need ' MM Park 1 2 -1 Moderate Need Monterey A Santa Rosa 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities t Monterey Toro I 1 0 Adequate Facilities MurrayCasa 3 3 0 -Adequate Facilities Ni mo era 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Ni mo a Marsh 2 l 1 More than Adequate Facilities North Chorro Femtni 3 5 2 Higher Need North Chorro A FoothiD 2 4 2 HigherNeed ' Orcutt Fernwood 3 4 -1 Moderate Need Orcutt Johnson 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Osos Palm(Citv Hall 5 5 0 Ad ate Facilities ' Patrkia 2 1 1 More than Adegswe Facilities Prefhmo Canyon Road Del Rio 2 2 0 Adequate Facilities Pismo Q Archer 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Short Range Transit Plan Page 115 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report StoD Location Facility Activity Needs In Description ' Pismo .Carmel 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Prado Access Drive 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities Railroad Avenue rain Station 5 3 2 More than Adequate Facilities ' Ramona a Palomar 3 5 2 Hi her Need Santa Barbara Church 3 3 0 Adequate Facilities Santa Barbara Church east 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Santa Barbara h 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities Santa Barbara 0 Efigh east 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities Santa Rosa A Bachon 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Santa Ross Bachon east 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities Santa Rosa era 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities ' Santa Rosa Leff 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities Santa Rona a,Marsh 0 1 4 Moderate Need Santa Rosa Meineke 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Santa Rosa Murray2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities South Beebee 4 1 3 More than Adequate Facilities South Beebee south 3 3 0 Adequare Facilities South Broad 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities South Cypress 4 1 3 More than Adequate Facilities South IGna I 1 0 Adequate Facilities South Kin south 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities South A Meadow 2 1 1 More than Adequate Facilities Southwood Q Laurel Lane 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Southwood Woodside 2 2 0 Adequate Facilities Tank Farm 60,Brookpine 3 1 2 More than A dequaie Facilities Tank Farm 9,Ho hock 3 2 1 More than Adequate Facilities ' Tank Farm Poinsettia 2 2 0 Adequate Facilities Tank Farm a Wavertree 3 1 2 More than Adequate Facilities ' Tassa'ara Q Ramona 2 4 -2 Hi her Need Valle Vista 1 1 0 Adequate Facilities Valle Vista west 1 1 0 Adequate Facilities 1 1 1 t ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 116 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Appendix D WHITE PAPER SLO TRANSIT FLASHPASS(COMMUTER CLUB)PROGRAM AIR MITIGATION MODEL Prepared by Austin O'Dell PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ' Background. As new developments come into the San Luis Obispo, the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) is requiring mitigation measures that reduce the generation of air pollution by reducing single occupant vehicle trips produced by the employees of these new developments. ' APCD requested SLO Transit to participate in the development of a program that will be mutually beneficial to both entities. SLO Transit presented the ideal of a flashpass program. ' Eligible Participants and Use of Mitigation Funds. SLO Transit and valid employees from participating employers by agreement are eligible participants for the flashpass program. Mitigation funds will be applied to one-way trips on SLO Transit by eligible participants,and will not used on any other transit system or purpose unless by amendment of agreements between City and participating employers. Methods of Participation.The flashpass program would provide free or reduced transit fares for participating employers in the SLO Transit service area. Employers would have two options of participating in this program. The first option would be a monthly payment program where the ' employer would pay SLO Transit a fixed sum per month for a fixed number of one-way trips per month. Employers would be invoice for the base number of trips plus the number of trips that exceeded the baseline number of trips for the cost of regular fare. This option would be under agreement that would be recorded with county and would run with the land. The second option would a one-time payment in an escrow accounts by the SLO-APCD. These accounts would be set up for the participating employers and debited base on the actual usage by each participating employer. ' Fare Media and Tracking. Employee Identification Cards would be the preferred fare media since the Employee ID Cards generally have the photograph of the employee on the card and are ' strictly controlled by employers upon entrance or exit of,employees. SLO Transit drivers would tally the usage of each participating employer upon boarding of employees. ' PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION APCD supports the idea of the City of San Luis Obispo to administer the program and to bear title of the escrow account with the provision that APCD can audit for appropriate use of funds. ' BENEFITS TO CITY The benefits to the City include the following:. ' This program would contribute a minimum of$6,000 per year into farebox recovery The City, SLOAPCD, and participating employers would be working in partnership to develop innovative programs that benefit our environment and reduce congestion 1 Short Range Transit Plan Page 117 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report 1 Great public image builder, especially due to Cal Poly's elimination of their free . student program. 1 BENFTTS TO EMPLOYER The benefits to the Employer include the following: ' Satisfies their mitigation requirements Public image Employee benefit for those need public transit or to reduce their transportation costs. NEXT STEPS The following next steps need to occur for this program to occur: 1 1. Internal PW support 2. SLOAPCD and Employer establish trust fund for the sole purpose of subsidizing the flashpass program 3. SLOAPCD Board approve program 4. Present program to MTC 1 5. City Council approval of program 1 1 1 I 1 ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 118 ' Final Report City of San Luis Obispo eP ' Appendix E ' Draft San Luis Obispo Transit CHARTER SERVICE POLICY BACKGROUND As a recipient of funds from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit) is required by the Federal Transit Act, as amended, to agree to conditions of charter service in accordance to 49 CFR 604. CITATION 49 CFR 604 FTA Circular 9030.1 C LEGAL BINDING AND AUTHORITY As a condition to receive federal transit capital and operating assistance, the City ' annually submits(paper or electronically)certifications to the FTA that states that the City will not provide charter service, unless there a private charter company that is not willing and able to provide charter service. The City further certifies that it will comply with 49 CFR 604. DEFINITIONS 1. The Acts means the FTA Act and those parts of Title 23 United States Code,23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4), 142(a) and 142(c),that provide for assistance to public bodies for purchasing buses. 2. Categories of Revenue Vehicle means bus or van. 3. Charter Service means transportation using buses or vans,or facilities funded under the Acts of a group of persons who pursuant to a common purpose,under a t single contract,at a fixed charge(in accordance with the carrier's tariff for the vehicle or service,have acquired the exclusive use of the vehicle or service to travel together under an itinerary either specified in advance or modified after ' having left the place of origin.This definition includes the incidental use of FTA ftmded equipment for the exclusive transportation of school students,personnel, and equipment. 4. Incidental Charter Service means charter service which does not: (1)interfere with or detract from the provision of the mass transportation service for which the equipment or facilities were fimded under the Acts;or(2)does not shorten 1the mass transportation life of the equipment or facilities. 5. Interested Party means an individual,partnership, corporation,association,or public or private organization that has a financial interest which is adversely affected by the act or acts of a recipient regarding charter service. 6. Non-urbaned area means an area with a population of less than 50,000 people. 7. Recipient means one that has received or is receiving Federal financial assistance under the Acts. The term includes sub recipients of a recipient, sub-recipients in FTA's State administered programs, public bodies that receive assistance that will be passed on to another public or quasi-public body, any 49 CFR Ch. VI (10-1-00 Edition) § 604.7 operator for a recipient, whether publicly or privately Short Range Transit Plan Page 119 1 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report owned, and may include lessees of federally assisted buses and other equipment. ' For any FTA State administered program,the State is the recipient. State Administered Program means any FTA grant program in which the State is the recipient of funds,passes the funds to sub recipients,and administers the program for FTA. ' FTA Act means the Federal Mass Transit Act of 1964, as amended,49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. FTA means the Federal Transit Administration. ' Willing and able means having the desire,having the physical capability of providing the categories of revenue vehicles requested, and possessing the legal authority, including the necessary safety certifications,licenses and other legal prerequisites,to provide charter service in the area in which it is proposed to be provided. POLICY 1. SLO Transit,a FTA recipient,shall not provide charter service using FTA funded equipment or facilities,or equipment operated by and/or maintained at FTA funded facilities unless one or more of the exceptions applies as specified in Section V(2-6)and in accordance to 49 CFR 604.9(b). ' 2. The City may enter into a contract with a private charter operator to provide charter equipment to, or service for,the private charter operator if: (i) The private charter operator is requested to provide charter service that ' exceeds its capacity; or (ii) The private charter operator is unable to provide equipment accessible to elderly and handicapped persons itself. 1 3. The City may petition the FTA for an exception to provide charter service directly to the customer for special events to the extent that private charter operators are not capable of providing the service. 1 4. The City may execute a contract with an organization that is exempt from taxation under subsection 501(c)(1), 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4),or 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code to provide charter service upon obtaining a ' certification from the organization which: (i) certifies that it is an organization exempt from taxation under subsection 501(c)(1), 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4),or 501(c)(19)of the ' Internal Revenue Code; there will be a significant number of handicapped persons as passengers on this charter trip;the requested charter trip is consistent with the function and purpose of the organization; and the charter trip will be organized and operated in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; and,section 19 of the Federal Mass Transit Act of 1964, as amended, and 49 CFR part 27; or, 45 CFR part 80;or, (ii) certifies that it is an organization exempt from taxation under subsection 501(c)(1), 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), or 01(c)(19) of the Internal ' Revenue Code;the organization is a qualified social service agency under appendix A of 49 CFR part 604, as a recipient of funds, either directly or indirectly, under one or more of the Federal programs listed ' in appendix A;the requested charter trip is consistent with the fiunction ' Short Range Transit Plan Page 120 1 . City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' and purpose of the organization; and the charter trip will be organized ' and operated in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,as amended; and, Section 19 of the Federal Mass Transit Act of 1964,as amended, and 49 CFR part 27;or,45 CFR part 80. ' (iii) certifies that it is an organization exempt from taxation under subsection 501(c)(1), 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4),or 501(c)(19)of the Internal Revenue Code;the organization either receives or is eligible ' to receive directly or indirectly, from a State or local governmental body,public welfare assistance funds for purposes whose implementation may require the transportation of a group of transit- advantaged or transit-dependent persons;following a petition presented by the State in which the entity or organization resides, FTA has determined in writing that an FTA recipient may contract directly with the entity or organization for charter services;the requested charter trip is consistent with the functions and purposes of the entity or organization; and the charter trip will be organized and operated in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,as amended; and section 19 of the Federal Mass Transit Act of 1964, as amended, and 49 CFR part 27; or,45 CFR part 80. 5. The City may provide charter service directly to the customer where a formal agreement has been executed between the City and all private charter operators it has determined to be willing and able in accordance ' with this part,provided that: (i) The agreement specifically allows the City to provide the particular type of charter trip; ' (ii) The City has provided for such an agreement in its annual public. charter notice published pursuant to this part, before undertaking any charter service pursuant to this exception; and (iii) The City receives several responses to its annual public charter notice but ceased its review process after determining that one private operator was willing and able, it must, before concluding a formal charter agreement under this section,complete the review process to ensure that all the willing and able private operators are valid parties to the agreement. 1 6. The process for requesting and granting and exception under Paragraph 3 in accordance to 49 CFR 604.9(b)(4): The City must submit its petition for an exception to the FTA at least 90 days prior to the day or days on which it desires to provide charter service. ' The petition must describe the event, explain how it is special, and explain the amount of charter service which private charter operators are not capable of providing. I The FTA will review the materials and issue a written decision denying or granting in whole or in part the request. In making this decision,the FTA may seek such additional information as the FTA determines is ' needed. Short Range Transit Plan Page 121 ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Any exception granted by the Administrator under 49 CFR 604.9(b)(4) shall be effective solely for the event for which the City requests an t exception. Any charter service that a City provides under any of the exceptions in this part must be incidental charter service. ' EXAMPLES OF CHARTER SERVICE The following are examples of charter service are: 1. Innovations Fair 2. Wheels of SLO ' 3. Cal Poly Week of Welcome 4. Taste of SLO 5. Christmas ' 6. Art after Dark 7. Elks Jamboree CONSEQUENCES Failure to adhere to this policy can result to financial penalty and/or cease of federal transit capital and operating assistance fiords. I . 1 1 I 1 1 Short Range Transit Plan Page 122 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' Appendbc F ' Draft San Luis Obispo Transit PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES FOR MAJOR SERVICE ' OR FARE CHANGES L BACKGROUND ' San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit) is required by the Federal Transit Act, as amended through 1992, to establish a policy, which defines a process to solicit and consider public ' comment prior to raising fares or implementing a major reduction of transit services. II. SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSIT POLICY - 6. It shall be SLO Transit's policy that public comments be solicited prior to: ' (i) Any permanent change, which increases fares on SLO Transit's fixed- route service.. 1 (ii) A twenty-five percent (25%) or more reduction of the number of daily transit revenue vehicle miles of a route (the total number of miles operated by all vehicles in revenue service for a particular day of the week on an individual route). (iii) A twenty-five percent (25%) or more reduction of the number of transit ' route miles of a route(the total mileage covered during one round trip by a vehicle in revenue service on a particular route). 1 (iv) Proposed introduction of a new route. 7. It shall be SLO Transit's policy that the following would be exempt from public comment and public hearing: (v) A minor change in fare or service. Examples would be temporarily ' reduced or promotional fares, minor route modifications or temporary route modifications due to street construction(s) or minor schedule changes. (vi) Experimental or emergency service or fare changes expected to exist fewer than one hundred and eighty (180) days and standard seasonal I variations in service. If these changes ultimately continue to remain in effect for more than one hundred and eighty (180) days,they will be the subject of public comment and public hearing. I Short Range Transit Plan Page 123 ' City of San Luis Obispo Final Report t8. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION ' When required, the public comment process will begin by informing the City Council of the need for a public hearing and/or the publishing of a legal notice thirty (30) calendar days in advance of the public hearing or open house date in 1 the local newspapers of general circulation. This notice will set a specific place, date, and time for one or more public hearings or open house. Written comments 1 will also be accepted on the proposed changes twenty (20) calendar days beyond initial publishing of the legal notice. ' Legal notices will inform the public of the proposed actions, which initiated the public comment process. Press releases will also be prepared and sent to the local media. Patrons of 1 routes proposed for adjustment will be notified of the public comment process by displaying pamphlets or posters on bus shelters on the route(s)affected. 9. SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING(S) The public hearing(s) and/or open houses will be scheduled and conducted by City Transit Manager at time,date,and place designated.The facility utilized for public hearings and open house will be accessible to persons with disabilities. Special arrangements will be made for ' sight or hearing impaired persons if requested. 1 10. PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCT PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS (vii) Public Hearing. Forms will be available to attendees to register their presence and desire to speak. Public hearings will begin with a reading of the public notice, purpose, and proposed action, which necessitated the public hearing.After an explanation of the proposed action is completed, the public will be invited to offer their comment. Each comment will be ' limited to three (3) minutes. After all registered persons have commented, a final opportunity will be offered for any additional public comment.This offering will precede the close of the public hearing. (viii) Open house. Open house is a less formal public comment process where staff and the consultant can explain the changes to attendees on a small group or one-to-one basis. Attendees would be requested to complete a survey or public comment form and sign-in. Generally, the summary of the proposed changes would be displayed around the room and/or presented. Staff,as appropriate,may introduce the changes in a summary fashion. Staff would then interact with attendees to stimulate feedback. Short Range Transit Plan Page 124 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report ' 11. DOCUMENTATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Official records of SLO Transit public hearing on fare or service adjustments will be generated by: ' (ix) Affidavits of newspaper publications of public notices. (x) Press releases conveying information on upcoming public hearings. (xi) Tape recordings, minutes, public comment forms, or certified verbatim transcripts of proceedings. t12. ADDRESSING PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED All relevant comments received verbally or in writing at a public hearing, or as otherwise conveyed to SLO Transit prior to the established deadline, will be summarized in a written report,which will include the original public comments. The report will be made available to tthe Mass Transportation Committee for input and/or comment for an advisory recommendation to the City Council. 13. ADMINISTRATORS 1 The City Council will be notified of all public comment solicitations in advance of all scheduled public hearings on fare and service adjustments. A subsequent report on public comment received will be provided to the City Council along 1 with staff recommendation for final disposition of the issues. Upon review by the City Council will be directed accordingly to proceed with or amend the 1 recommended service and/or fare adjustments. 1 Short Range Transit Plan Page 125 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report tAppendix G ' San Luis Obispo Transit Fare Policy ' Bas Fares Regular $0.75 Senior(62+) $0.35 ' Disabled $0.35 Children Free (Under 5 with fare-paying adult,maximum 2 children) Bus Transfers ' From SLO Transit Free From CCAT Full Fare ' From Downtown Trolley Full Fare Bus Passes Regular Monthly Pass $24.00 Senior Monthly Pass $7.50 Disabled Pass $7.50 Universal Pass $30.00 Regional Transit Pass ' Regular $50.00 Senior,Disabled, Students K-12 $35.00 Proposed Trolley Fare All $0.25 Trolley Transfers From SLO Transit $0.25 From CCAT $0.25 I I Short Range Transit Plan Page 126 City of San Luis Obispo Final Report Fare Policies: ' Drivers do not make change.Exact fare is required. Valid identification is required to qualify for senior and disabled discounted fare. Passengers must show proper identification when boarding to qualify for discount fares.. Passengers are required to ask for transfers when boarding.Transfers are valid for one ' hour and in the same direction to complete the trip.It is recommended that transfers occur at the Downtown Transfer Center located at Osos and Palm(City Hall). Passes are available at City Hall. SLO Transit is not responsible for lost or stolen passes. Valid identification is required to qualify for the senior and disabled monthly passes. Passengers must show their valid pass and have valid identification when boarding the bus. 1 Short Range Transit Plan Page 127 t t Traffic and Transportation ' Bridge and Civil Engineering Architecture Parking Services 1 Construction Inspection Environmental Services 1 Transit Services - Structural Engineering URB__ ITR_ AN - • - 71 West 23rd Street New York,New York 10010 212.366.6200 Fax 212.366.6214 12 West 27th Street, 12th FLoor New York.NY 10001 212.366.6200 Fax 646.424.0835 New Jersey 2 Ethel Road-Suite 2058 Edison.New Jersey 08817 732.248.5422 Fax 732.248.5424 150 River Road.Building E ' Montville.NJ 07045 973.299.2910 Fax 973.299.0347 ' Connecticut 50 Union Avenue Union Station.Third Floor East New Haven.CT 06519 203.789.9977 Fax 203.789.8809 California ' 1440 Broadway,Suite 500 Oakland. CA 94612 510.639.0810 Fax 510.839.0854 Massachusetts 275 Southampton Road Holyoke,MA 01040 413.539.9005 Albany 6 Meadowlark Drive Cohoes.NY 12047 P.O.Box 524 518.235.8429 I