Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05/05/2009, PH1 - ADOPTION OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
council May 5,2009 j acEnaa Pepont CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Director Prepared By: John Webster, Transit Manager SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN As recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee and the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt the 2009 Short Range Transit Plan, with modifications as recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee on January 14, 2009 and endorsed by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2009. 2. Approve the Negative Declaration as recommended by the Planning Commission REPORT-IN-BRIEF The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is a five-year planning document used to analyze service levels, funding, and to provide recommendations for improvement to overall service, stability and growth. This planning and operational document is used as the foundation for seeking community input, establishing priorities and funding programs to allow the City to apply for local, state, and federal grants. It is also a requirement to maintain eligibility for certain funding sources. The City's Circulation Element requires that the City adopt a SRTP and update it every five years. The current SRTP was adopted on August 28, 2003. The 2003 SRTP recommended a number of service changes that were implemented on January 4, 2004 and have proven to be quite successful. The City's bus service experienced a significant increase in ridership and performance since then, and as discussed in the draft SRTP, public perception of transit services provided by the City overall is positive. As a whole, the SRTP is the fundamental programming document to consider current and future service changes, establish policies and programs and receive federal funds and grants. Preparation and review of the document is accomplished under the purview of the City's Mass Transportation Committee (MTC). The following key elements were analyzed as part of this SRTP update: 1. Update of existing operational data 2. New Origin and Destination Survey 3. Five Year Financial and Capital Plan 4. Existing Service Level analysis and critique 5. Five Year Service Level recommendations 6. Update of SLO Transit Goals and Objectives 7. Integration of services with regional and other transit operators Pip Short Range Transit Plan Adoption Page 2 The key recommendations in the proposed plan are outlined in the SRTP Executive Summary (Attachment#1) DISCUSSION Background This SRTP update process started in 2007. The City Council approved the hiring of Urbitrans Inc, a professional transit services consultant, to perform the work. The MTC assigned members to a Short Range Transit Plan ad-hoc subcommittee in order to provide specific and focused input during preparation of the draft document. This subcommittee provided review and input in the development of the technical working papers prepared by the City's consultant. The subcommittee has worked closely with the consultant and staff throughout the update process to offer suggestions for consideration. Scope of Work for the Update An Origin & Destination (O&D) study was performed to determine where people want to travel and their current modes of transportation to help identify potential untapped transit markets. The study also included field interviews with a random sample of current riders to analyze the habits and needs of bus riders in San Luis Obispo. This information was considered crucial to understanding where (and when) people want to go to in order to better tailor the City transit services to increase ridership. Finally, this information will enable the City to evaluate its current route system and schedules to make recommendations that will better serve San Luis Obispo transit users. In addition to the O&D study and the rider surveys mentioned above, numerous public workshops were held to solicit input from the public and other key stakeholders (such as Cal Poly)that were used to craft the recommendations in the document. Public Involvement Process The consultant conducted a draft recommendations meeting with the MTC ad-hoc subcommittee members on September 19, 2007 and held "drop in" sessions at transit stops, along with stakeholder interviews, on October 23-25, 2007 to discuss potential service changes. Presentations were made to the MTC at the November 7, 2007, February 13, 2008, and September 10, 2008 meetings to keep the committee members apprised of the preliminary findings and potential recommendations. The consultant presented the draft report at the regular MTC meeting held on November 12, 2008. Committee members then had the opportunity to review the draft document in order to prepare to ask questions and make suggested changes at the December 9, 2008 special meeting. The draft plan was available at City Hall, Public Works Administration offices, the City/County Library, and the Kennedy Library at Cal Poly University from November 3 through December 5, 2008 for public input. P� I � � I Short Range Transit Plan Adoption Page 3 A day-long open house was held on November 13, 2008 in the Council Chambers at 990 Palm Street where staff and consultants answered questions and accepted additional comments from the public. The public was also invited to provide comments by mail, email, and fax, by public comment at one of the public hearings or by phone. There were no significant concerns received from the public during the MTC meetings or the open house. Most comments received were positive in nature regarding the current transit system and were focused on improvements. On December 2, 2008 the ad-hoc subcommittee met a final time to review public comments and the final recommendations. One written comment in the form of an email from D. Gregg Doyle was taken in as part of that process and was included in the draft report. When reviewing the recommendations of the report, the MTC members were asked to address the following questions; 1. Are there any fatal flaws in the changes being recommended? 2. Does the Draft SRTP adequately address the issues needing consideration in the next five year period? 3. Do the proposed route service changes include appropriate level of coverage in all City areas? 4. Does the Draft SRTP adequately balance demand requests with limited funding levels? 5. Are there gaps in transfer opportunities within the proposed route changes? 6. Are the recommended policy and system standards adequate for benchmarking the system to make suggested changes and, if necessary, choices between competing service changes? 7. Does the document adequately address growing areas of the City that will need enhanced transit services to meet objectives of transit oriented development(TOD)? Satisfied that the consultant had adequately addressed those questions, the draft report was approved by the MTC at its regular meeting on January 14, 2009. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft report and environmental Initial Study for General Plan consistency on April 8, 2009. The commission was supportive of the recommendations in the SRTP and confirmed the negative environmental determination, consistency with the Circulation Element and recommended that the Council adopt the SRTP. Service Change Considerations. A primary goal of the SRTP is to make focused recommendations for service changes to meet the transit needs of the community, improve the productivity of operations and transit routes and set the stage for the next five years of transit service. Service changes and refinements recommended by the consultants reflect their best efforts in compiling the various service requests from the public and at the same time framing them within the objectives of the transit program. Areas that the consultant focused on include: Short-term (1-2 year) and mid-term (3-5 year) service changes; options for the current pilot program evening service; developing basic service levels for intercity service and better coordination with other area operators such as the Regional P 1 -3 I,. Short Range Transit Plan Adoption Page 4 Transit Authority (RTA); fare structure alternatives and identifying new market areas such as Cuesta College. The route changes being recommended for most of the SLO Transit routes are an attempt to better meet public demand for transit service. But (refer recommendation#1) service changes are being delayed until such time as transit funding issues are resolved. Various route modifications have also been recommended to streamline route overlap and enhance on-time performance. The full scope of recommendations is outlined in the SRTP Executive Summary (Attachment #1). Fiscal Forecast-A Challenging Time Ahead The update to the SRTP began in 2007. At that time transit funding was somewhat stable with a sequence of years in which both State and Federal funding to the City increased. That scenario has changed recently due to economic conditions, State budget redirections and increased costs system wide. For the immediate future, SLO Transit (like all transit providers) will be challenged to keep current service levels, let alone consider increasing service. While operating funding has been reduced in the last twenty-four(24) month period, funding for capital expenses (bus replacement, bus stop improvements, etc) has actually increased. With the passage of Proposition 1B by the voters in 2007 and the one-time infusion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding, it places many transit agencies in a position to afford replacement of aging fleet vehicles and infrastructure but with little or no funds allocated to operate them. The City will be challenged to provide any of the recommended service level increases due to reduced funding. State transit funding takeaways and reduced funding levels that amounted to over $225,000 in this fiscal year will test SLO Transit's ability to maintain current service levels over the next twelve months. Some of the service changes recommended in the SRTP represent an overall increase in service that reflects the community goals and needs; however, these will come at an increased cost. Those costs, coupled with the desire to better market the system and the staff time required to administer the transit system mean additional resources will likely be needed. These costs are considered operating costs and therefore will affect the 20% farebox ratio requirement that SLO Transit must maintain. If the farebox ratio is not maintained, the City's eligibility for state funding can be compromised and funding withheld in future years. Thus it is very important to balance demand, costs and revenue such that the percentage of farebox collected stays healthy. Staff Review of the Recommendations As a final task in the SRTP process, staff reviewed the consultant recommendations for all service changes. This process included addressing comments made in the public review process of the SRTP, taking service recommendations (and associated costs) and comparing them with Short Range Transit Plan Adoption Page 0 available funding anticipated to be received for the Transit Fund. The City of San Luis Obispo traditionally commits all of its annual transit funding to transit service, i.e. no funds go to streets or road improvements as done in other agencies. The two main funding sources, State Transportation Development Act (STA) and Federal Transit Administration dollars have been fully utilized to come up with final SRTP recommendations. In addition, the City must meet a minimum 20% farebox recovery ratio for all service levels provided on an annual basis or face losing STA funding. The City's transit service is an enterprise fund. As such, the transit service is required to fund itself entirely from grants from local, state, and federal sources; as well as revenues from passenger fares. As a policy, the City's transit service does not receive assistance from the general fund. The challenge is to determine the best possible service levels to best meet the needs of the community within the limited funding anticipated to be received in future years (see fiscal analysis section). Overall, staff is in general agreement with the consultant's "recommendations for service changes. Potential modifications to individual route characteristics are possible to meet isolated route changes that MTC members believe may be needed, but there could be some difficulty in implementing the route modifications at the recommended rimes contained in the report especially until additional transit funding has been identified. Continuing Downtown construction activity, changes being made on the Cal Poly University campus and fiscal funding levels will be a challenge in implementing the changes as we proceed. However, the recommendations established in the report are considered appropriate and staff will strive to meet the timing objectives of implementation within the framework of the final SRTP document if sufficient funding is available: The current SRTP builds upon some of the successes of the previous 2003 SRTP by addressing crowding issues that have resulted due to increased ridership by adding connections to major generators (such as Cal Poly). Also, this plan responds to new development areas which were stated in the previous SRTP (such as the airport area). A difference in this SRTP is the separation of the loop in the southeast area of the City and designating the Broad Street corridor to be served by Route 1 and the Johnson corridor served by Route 3, thereby making service more user friendly. Recommendations: 1. Adopt the draft SRTP and recommendations for potential service changes and other transit improvements. Delay service changes until such time as transit funding issues are resolved and continue to review existing service for operating efficiencies. 2. Establish a goal of maintaining current service levels and seek additional funding to continue or enhance transit services recommended in the SRTP. 3. Identify new funding to replace expired STA grant in order to continue existing evening service pilot program in FY 2009-2010 and beyond. P� �-5 Short Range Transit Plan Adoption Page 6 4. Implement fare modifications as soon as possible in order to provide additional operating funding and offset the impact of State TDA reductions (STA program elimination) starting in FY 2009-2010. This issue was the subject of a public hearing on April 21. 5. Expedite vehicle and equipment procurements whenever possible in order to leverage new and existing available State and Federal funding grant programs especially those that do not require a local match. 6. Consider future bus replacements with vehicles using high capacity (Double Deck) models or alternate fuels such as diesel hybrid, CNG, or 100% electric. 7. Continue to meet, discuss, and implement methods to improve service coordination and marketing between other area operators and the SLO Transit system. General Plan Consistency The SRTP implements the policies and programs of the City's Circulation Element such as transit development, city bus service, campus bus service, unmet transit needs, service standards and transit service access. In addition, employee transit incentive plans, transit passes, downtown trolley, and marketing continue to be evaluated and expanded whenever possible. The SRTP and its update is a major work program of the Circulation Element of the General Plan Environmental Review (ER 9-09) The SRTP had a previous environmental determination prepared in 2003. There have been no changes to the Plan that would result in any environmental impacts. All potential environmental impacts were analyzed in the previous document and CEQA allows reliance on earlier determinations in this case. FISCAL IMPACTS There is no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund. As the Transit Fund is an enterprise fund, it is self supporting from a variety of Federal and State sources. Fares collected, along with Federal and State funding, must be greater than operating and capital expenses. At the time this report was being prepared, the extent of further State funding reductions and takeaways was unknown, as was the impact from possible increases in the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) budget. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 fund allocation has not been finalized, but an increase of approximately 5-6% is anticipated. Fare increases approved by the Council on April 21, 2009 are expected to produce $55,000460,000 annually. Until all of the decisions about transit funding sources are made, final service levels cannot be determined. Given the current fiscal circumstances facing the City, it is unlikely that any of the recommended service level improvements in the SRTP will be possible in the 2009-11 Financial Plan. In fact, simply maintaining current service levels will be very difficult. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny SRTP modifications. The City Council may recommend approval of the SRTP Short Range Transit Plan Adoption Page 7 exclusive of the modified findings and/or conditions as recommended by the MTC. 2. Delay SRTP adoption. The City Council may continue review of the SRTP, the consequence to this alternative is that it may require additional analysis by staff and delay adoption. Staff is not recommending this alternative as any delay to the adoption of the SRTP may have negative funding and programming consequences. ATTACHMENTS 1. Executive Summary 2. MTC minutes of January 14, 2009 3. Planning Commission draft minutes of April 8, 2009 4. EIR Initial Study 2003 and 2009 checklist * Note: The complete Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) has been provided to the City Council and is available for public review in the City Clerk's office at 990 Palm Street or on the City website at the following location: httn://www.slocity.ors/i)ublicworks/download/mtecommittee/srtpfmal 0109 pdf T:\Council Agenda Reports\Public Works CAR\Transit\SRTP\SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN UPDATE ADOPTION Q 5-05-2009.doc ATTACHMENTM Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Executive Summary The City of San Luis Obispo is centrally located in California between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The City has an estimated population of 42,963 (2006 Census Bureau estimate). San Luis Obispo is also home to the California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), a major source of population, employment, and other overall economic and social impacts. SLO Transit, a program operated out of the Department of Public Works, is the City of San Luis Obispo's transit provider and operates fixed route service throughout the City and trolley service downtown. Other regional and paratransit service providers also offer service to the City. The following map provides an overview of the SLO Transit service area. SLO Transit Service Area Overview city.of ss owspo Shore Range Transit Pian L'pdme q �i - Service Area Overview f �r Lind � ,I P ,( NA Rom e' ... C L-:C,,., �.�X IN S •••, Tr.11:yF_,r.T�l_:n - 4Gp �`h �� Noa4 F— d>J l .- -neat •�.. .if,. \;fes 1<a:I Rust � lbnsuna �� — Cn,LLT.:ry ---------------- Socioeconomic and Land Use Characteristics According to 2000 Census information, the population of the City of San Luis Obispo was 44,174. From 1990-2000, San Luis Obispo's population grew by 5%, a rate much lower than the Draft Final Report ES-1 ATTACHMENT#1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo statewide figure of 14%. The Census Bureau reports that San Luis Obispo's population did not change from 2000 to 2003, but has declined by 3% from 2003 to 2006 (population 42,963). The population in the area is projected to grow significantly through 2030. In the San Luis Obispo area, the rural areas are anticipated to grow at a rate approximately double that of the City proper. The highest probabilities for transit success based on the characteristics of the City's residents are found throughout downtown, particularly around Foothill Boulevard in the northern part of the City and around Laurel Lane in the southern part of the City. Neighborhoods that house Cal Poly students also have great potential for transit success as on-campus housing and parking are both limited. Other potential areas for success include major employment concentrations such as the Cal Poly campus, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and County Offices and other major trip generators such as hospitals, shopping centers and social service agencies. As with most communities nationwide, the permanent resident population is aging as baby boomers reach retirement age. The aging of the population creates new challenges for transit service provision and requires consideration in future planning. San Luis Obispo also has other populations that depend in some way or another on alternative forms of transportation. The City is home to a large disabled population (many of whom are seniors), many youth, and a large percentage of the population living below the poverty level. Service Overview SLO Transit, a City entity with service operation contracted to First Transit, provides fixed-route bus service throughout the City of San Luis Obispo. SLO Transit operates a total of seven regular bus routes on weekdays, six routes on Saturdays, and four routes on Sundays, as well as a Downtown Trolley Thursdays through Sundays. Five routes operate Monday through Friday evenings during the school year. The following table presents revenue and expenses by source for Fiscal Year 2006. Expenses and Revenue(FY 2006) Category Amount Expense Vehicle Operation $1,654,244 Vehicle Maintenance $275,951 Non-Vehicle Maintenance $6,687 General Administrative $675,107 Total $2,607,989 Revenue Directly Generated $453,002 Local Sources $0 State Sources $1,640,858 Federal Sources $514,128 Total $2,607,988 Saif_e6 2006 NTD Reporting Draft Final Report ES-2 CP -I AT7ACHMENT#1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo SLO Transit's maximum vehicle requirement includes a peak pullout of 10 vehicles during Thursday PM peak, including the Trolley. Not including the Trolley, the maximum vehicle requirement is 9, including Monday through Friday AM Peak, Midday, and PM Peak. Routes 4 and 5 require the most vehicles for service, two at most times except evenings, while all other routes require only one (or 0.5) vehicle to operate. The following table shows revenue miles and hours for each route. Daily Revenue Miles and Hours Route Miles Hours Monday-Thursday Route 1 Broad/Johnson[Universify S uare 113.4 11.27 Route 2 South Higuera/Subu bb i 156.5 14.28 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 177.1 14.50 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 348.7 27.64 Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 332.9 25.64 - Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 116.4 12.99 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 93.6 13.08 Downtown Trolley Thursday only) 51.3 5.50 Total/Thursday Total 1,338.6/1,389.9 119.40/124.90 Friday Route 1 Broad/Johnson/Uniwersity Square 113.4 11.27 Route 2 South Mguera/Suburban 156.5 14.28 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 177.1 14.50 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 348.7 27.64 Route 5 Cal Poi /La Lake/Madonna 332.9 25.64 _ Route 6a Cal Pol /Hi hland 61.6 6.92 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 47.3 6.43 Downtown Trolley 84.8 9.00 Total 1,322.3 115.68 Sat day Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 105.0 10.00 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 110.4 9.55 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 125.0 9.92 Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 133.0 9.95 Route 6a Cal Pol /Hi hland 39.6 4.45 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 32.4 4.45 Downtown Trolley 86.8 9.00 Total 631.2 57.32 Sunda Route 2 South Hi uera/Suburban 105.0 10.00 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 110.4 9.55 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 125.0 9.92 Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 133.0 9.95 I.Downtown Trolley 52.0 5.50 Total 525.4 44.92 Sources:SLO Transit(from First Transit) Over the past five years SLO Transit service has declined slightly, while ridership has increased dramatically. The following presents the service and ridership trends for SLO Transit. This Draft Final Report ES-3 PIS ► - 10 ATTACHMENT#1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo table shows that revenue hours and miles declined from 2002 to 2004, increased from 2004 to 2005, and declined again from 2005 to 2006. Ridership, on the other hand, declined by 6% from 2002 to 2003, but then increased by 41% from 2003 to 2006. The State Controller's Report shows a decline in ridership in FY 2007. SLO Transit Service Level Trends 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Annual Passengers 721,466 677,355 705,806 938,952 955,287 934,534 Revenue Hours 36,599 36,497 25,733 32,417 32,350 32,653 Revenue Miles 394,674 392,462 361,378 379,000 364,539 367,217 Peak Vehicles 11 11 10 10 it 11 Source:2006 NTD Reporting,State Controller's Report The financial trends show that both the cost and amount of funding that SLO Transit has been receiving over the last 5 years has been growing, except in 2006. In terms of costs, the actual vehicle operational costs have increased substantially, while both vehicle and non-vehicle maintenance costs have been inconsistent. General administrative costs have increased by 149% since 2002, increasing every year except 2004. Funding for the most part has kept up with the cost of running the system. The bulk of funding has come from state sources, followed by federal sources and directly generated revenues such as from the farebox. Local assistance decreased to nothing from 2003 to 2004, but fare revenues increased dramatically. While federal funding increased from 2002 to 2004 and then decreased from 2004 to 2006, state funding and directly generated revenues have grown consistently. Public Outreach The SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan includes an extensive community participation program designed to elicit input from members of the general public, current users of the system, community leaders, key policy decision makers and other transportation stakeholders in San Luis Obispo. The public outreach efforts include such activities as drop-in sessions, stakeholder interviews, and interviews with SLO Transit bus operators. In all, more than 150 people provided input into the study, as follows: Interviews Conducted Interview Type Number Drop-Ins Cal Poly 40 Downtown SLO(AM Peak) 10 Downtown SLO(PM Peak) 50 Total 100 Stakeholder Interviews 45 Bus Operator Interviews 6 Total 151 Draft Final Report ES-4 1 A17ACHMENT#1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Whether talking to riders at the drop-in sessions, or the bus drivers, or the stakeholders, there were a number of common threads that ran through all of the sessions, including: • SLO Transit is, overall, an excellent public transportation system that is well-run and provides a vital service to the community. • SLO Transit service needs to be better coordinated with the services provided by the RTA. • SLO Transit routes which serve the Cal Poly campus are plagued by overcrowding at certain times of the day, which is exacerbated by what are perceived to be buses that are too small for these routes. • SLO Transit should consider additional evening and weekend services, as well as enhanced frequencies of service. • SLO Transit should also consider new service on the southern end of Broad Street in the "airport corridor" service area. • SLO Transit must address the perception that it is a service primarily for Cal Poly students and transit dependents to one that serves everyone in the community. This can be accomplished first by recognizing that there are a number of choice riders who use the bus now, and by better marketing the service to these and other potential riders. On-Board Survey 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. Two major groups of people use the SLO Transit system: students and non-students. The defining characteristics of these two groups are as follows: • Students tend to be younger (19-24), have more cars, have been riding SLO Transit for less than two years, and are going to and from school. They tend to rate the transit service slightly lower than non-students. • Non-students tend to be older (25-59), are not affiliated with Cal Poly, have one or zero cars, make less than $35,000, and have either been riding SLO Transit for less than six months or more than five years. They tend to rate the transit service as excellent or very good in all categories. The seeming contradiction between students' and non-students' household incomes and car ownership is likely tied to supplemental income that students receive from their families, which allows them to own a vehicle. Draft Final Report ES-5 ATTACHMENT#1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Survey respondents were requested to suggest ways in which SLO Transit could improve on its service. Out of the pool of 776 respondents, 573 (74%) wrote in a suggestion for improvement. Of those who wrote in a suggestion, 57 (7%) said that service was good as it is. Other responses included`. • Crowding — approximately 25% of riders cited crowding as a significant concern, particularly during peak periods on routes serving Cal Poly. Some respondents suggested purchasing larger buses, and others suggested increasing service frequency to help alleviate this problem. • On time performance — the most common response (24%) was that buses often leave early or arrive late for their scheduled stops. • Coordination with the Cal Poly class schedule— Cal Poly classes let out on the hour. Currently, all routes serving Cal Poly leave Mott Gym or the University Union by six minutes after the hour (some earlier), which does not provide adequate time for students to reach the bus stop after class. A few students also mentioned that buses do not arrive soon enough before class. • Span of service — many respondents requested that service start earlier in the morning in order to provide access to jobs and classes that start earlier than the current service schedule. Additionally, while the extended evening hours on Monday through Thursday are popular, many respondents requested that service run later on Fridays and weekends, as well as during the summer. • Friday service—Many respondents, particularly Cal Poly students who would use Routes 6a and 6b, requested that Friday service operate at the same frequency as weekday service. Peer System Analysis SLO Transit was compared to eight peer systems, including the City of Greeley (Greeley, Colorado), Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation (Bloomington, Indiana), St. Cloud Metropolitan Transit Commission (St. Cloud, Minnesota), Missouri State University (Springfield, Missouri), Las Cruces Area Transit (Las Cruces, New Mexico), Charlottesville Transit Service (Charlottesville, Virginia), Blacksburg Transit (Blacksburg, Virginia), and Eau Claire Transit (Eau Claire, Wisconsin). Three types of statistics—service input, service output, and service consumption statistics—were used to generate a series of performance indicators measuring efficiency, effectiveness, and service availability. These indicators were compared between SLO Transit and each of the eight peer systems, and all nine systems were ranked for each indicator. • Financial efficiency measures the cost to produce a unit of service. Draft Final Report ES-6 PH1 0 • ATTACHMENT#1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo • Service effectiveness measures the amount of service consumed per unit of service provided. • Cost effectiveness links the previous two measures by assessing how well resources are used to produce trips and how well fare revenue covers the cost of those trips. The following chart summarizes SLO Transit's ranking among its peer systems for each metric explored in the peer analysis. Peer and Trend Analysis Summary Category Metric SLO Transit Rank Average _ Financial Efficiency Cost per Revenue Mile $6.95 9 of 9 Cost per Revenue Hour $76.56 5 of 9 Service Effectiveness Passengers per Revenue Mile 2.4 4 of 9 Passengers per Revenue How 29.7 3 of 9 Cost per Passenger $2.71 1 4 of 9 Cost Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio 17.4% 4 of 9 Average Fare $0.47 4 of 9 Deficit per Passenger $2.24 4 of 9 Service Evaluation,Issues, and Opportunities The findings in this section take into account the quantitative data as well as the issues and opportunities identified by the customers, stakeholders, and those who commented at the drop-in sessions; and the data from the peer group and trend analyses. The analysis of SLO Transit services shows a number of issues as well as opportunities for service improvements. The list below presents the issues and opportunities for the SLO Transit route network: • There are issues with overcrowding on routes that serve the Cal Poly campus • Running time/On-time performance issues • The frequency and span of service on Friday differing from other weekdays • Frequency and span of service during summer periods versus winter periods • Duplication with SLORTA services • Fare issues between SLORTA and SLO Transit services • Quality and accuracy of public information • Confusing route network with bi-directional loops • Low productivity on certain routes • Difficult turns for certain bus routes on neighborhood streets • Equipment issues with old buses and deployment of buses to meet ridership • Service needed to emerging corridors • The need for an off-street transfer center Draft Final Report ES-7 ATTACHMENT#1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Route Recommendations The following map shows the system proposed in the Short Range Transit Plan Update. Proposed System crtyssann[Las osispo Short Range Transit o Plan L-' date Iwmlu lnw �. Proposed System r Structure v y IWRd ww sl —LLs:.rvl Runic V HudS? 441 / Duu1r �71 Route 1 This route would operate between Sierra Vista Hospital and Johnson/Southwood via Santa Rosa Street and Broad Street, operating through downtown. It will operate a terminal loop that goes west on Foothill Boulevard, south on Tassajara Street, east on Ramona Drive, and north on Broad Street back to Foothill Boulevard. It would serve the Downtown Transfer Center and would continue south along Broad Street to Orcutt Road with a terminal loop utilizing Orcutt Road, Johnson Avenue, Southwood Road, and Laurel Lane. The modifications to Route 1 create a bi-directional corridor along Broad Street and, together with the proposed modifications to Route 3, greatly simplify the service patterns in the southeastern portion of the service area. Ideally there will be a timed transfer along Laurel Lane between Routes 1 and 3. One roundtrip on Route 1 will be 9.8 revenue miles long and take approximately one hour. We anticipate one bus providing hourly service along Route 1. In future years an additional bus will be required to provide 30 minute service. Draft Final Report ES-8 P14 (-(5 ATTACHMENTO Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San.Luis Obispo Route 2 The current SLO Transit Route 2 will be greatly modified. SLO Transit Route 2 would be operated from the North Perimeter Drive on the Cal Poly campus to the Downtown Transfer Center along the alignment of the current Route 6b. It would then proceed south to the Amtrak Station and continue to the Greyhound Bus Station. From the Greyhound Bus Station Route 2 will utilize Higuera Street to Los Osos Valley Road. The route will return north on Route 101 to Prado Road and terminate at the Prado Day Center stop. Route 2 would begin its return trip by heading northbound along Higuera Street. The new Route 2 incorporates segments of the existing Routes 2, 4, 5 and 6b and serves to provide a bi-directional service between the center of the Cal Poly campus, downtown San Luis Obispo, and — with respect to intermodal connectivity — the Amtrak Station and the current Greyhound Bus Station. It also serves the Prado Day Center near its southern end. One roundtrip on Route 2 will be 13.2 revenue miles long and take approximately 60 minutes. We anticipate two buses providing service every 30 minutes on Route 2. Route 3 The modified Route 3 would operate from the Downtown Transfer Center and serve the Johnson Street corridor to the Johnson Street/Augusta Street couplet. It would then utilize Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road to Tank Farm Road, from which it would proceed south along Broad Street and utilize the San Luis Obispo Airport as a turn-around location. The northbound route would return via Broad Street to Tank Farm Road and utlize the same streets as the southbound routing. Route 3 would enter downtown San Luis Obispo via the current alignment of northbound Route I and would exit downtown via the current alignment of southbound Route 3. Along with the proposed modifications to Route 1, the modifications to Route 3 greatly simplify the SLO Transit service patterns in the southeastern portion of the service area. The emerging employment corridor along Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and the airport is also served. One roundtrip on Route 3 will take approximately one hour, and will travel 10.9 revenue miles. We anticipate one bus providing hourly service along Route 3. In future years an additional bus will be needed to provide 30 minute service. Routes 4 and 5 The new SLO Transit Routes 4 and 5 will replace the current Routes 4 and 5, operating in a similar manner—a large loop in opposite directions. The new Route 5 will operate in a counter- clockwise direction, while the new Route 4 will operate in a clockwise direction, similar to today's operation. These routes will no longer serve the Amtrak Station, Santa Rosa Street, and South Street, which will instead be served on Route 2. These routes will instead operate on Higuera Street between Downtown and Madonna Road. Additionally, Routes 4 and 5 will no longer utilize Auto Park Way on the lower portions of Los Osos Valley Road to turnaround, they will turnaround utilizing the Home Depot parking lot. Draft Final Report ES-9 j 041 ATTACHMENT#1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo The modified Routes 4 and 5 are a more "streamlined" version of the current Routes 4 and 5. They serve downtown more directly and allow the southern end of downtown San Luis Obispo to be served by the modified Route 2. More streets also receive bi-directional service, and the use of"5" and "4" for the route nomenclature is appropriate given that this is essentially the same loop route in opposite directions: The cycle time for both routes will be 60 minutes, which should be possible based on the more direct route alignment. Route 4 will travel 11.2 miles and Route 5 will travel 11.5 miles. We anticipate two buses providing service every 30 minutes on Route 5 and two buses providing service every 30 minutes on Route 4, for a total of four buses on Route 4 and 5. Route 6 The new Route 6 is essentially the renamed Route 6a. The current Route 6a is modified by not serving the Sierra Vista Hospital loop via Santa Rosa, Murray and Casa Streets, which will now be served by Route 1. The full cycle of the Route 6 will travel 3.7 miles and is expected to take .30 minutes, including layover time. We anticipate one bus providing service every 30 minutes along Route 6. There will no longer be routes designated as 6a and 6b, as Route 6 will replace Route 6a, and the modified Route 2 will replace Route 6b. Downtown Trolley This route continues to operate as it does today, utilizing one vehicle. New Crosstown Route This would be a new route that would be implemented in Year 5 of the plan, depending on funding, to enable a connection between eastern portions of the city, southern portions of the city, and Madonna Plaza without operating through downtown. This route would operate primarily along Tank Farm Road, Broad Street, and Johnson Street to allow cross-town movement. This route would operate with one vehicle, providing service every 60 minutes. The vehicle will travel a total of 17.2 revenue miles, however the 60 minute cycle time is based on operating in relative free-flow conditions and not experiencing the traffic conditions of the Cal Poly campus or Downtown. Other Proposals As part of the planning process for this Short Range Transit Plan Update, several long term strategic issues have been identified that should be considered as part of future planning efforts. These are as follows: • SLORTA Coordination — Coordination with the RTA was a precept used in the draft route recommendations; schedule coordination should be addressed as a near term issue, specifically when the new timetables are designed for Year 1 implementation with a priority setting as to which SLO local routes warrant schedule coordination with RTA the most. This is because both operators provide service within the City of San Luis Obispo. However, SLO Transit provides local circulation within the city and SLORTA provides Draft Final Report ES-10 PN i-I� -- ATTACHMENTO Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo regional connections. As these two operators serve different purposes, a policy that should be immediately pursued is closer cooperation in terms of schedules, fare media, and marketing. This should help increase awareness of region-wide transit and improve the convenience of transfers between the two systems. Coordinating transfers is important; however, it must balance the needs of the schedules for both SLO Transit and SLORTA operations. • New Corridors and Areas — Future service corridors might include the Oceanaire Drive/Laguna Lakes area as well as any other possible "crosstown" corridors. Although the corridor connecting Cuesta College with San Luis Obispo is important, it is a regional corridor more appropriately served by SLORTA. Chorro Street north of downtown is another corridor that in the future may warrant bus service to connect to downtown. As the city grows and develops available land, as well as annexing any new areas, transit services should be considered to improve mobility in these new areas. • Park-and-Ride Lot Locations — The proposed park-and-ride lot at Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. Route 101 would best be served by SLORTA Route 10, which serves the South Higuera Street corridor. A long term park-and-ride location might be Highland Drive at State Route 1, which would be served both by SLORTA and the modified SLO Transit Route 5. Park-and-ride should be implemented at this location if adequate land is available. • Downtown Transfer Center — In the future, any planning efforts for a new off-street transfer center in downtown San Luis Obispo should consider the need to accommodate articulated buses at such a facility. In addition, a future facility might also need to accommodate intercity bus services as well as SLORTA services. Summary and Implementation A new route network was developed for SLO Transit based on data collection, input from technical staff and public involvement. This network was developed to address key issues such as ease of comprehension, response to public input/unmet needs, overcrowding, bi-directional service, intermodal connectivity, street geometry issues, extended service coverage, emerging corridors, and fare integration. Below are the highlights of the implementation schedule: Year I The first year of service completely overhauls the route network. All of the route modifications described in the route modification proposal section, with the exception of the new crosstown route, would be implemented in the first year. The route frequencies would be the same as described in the route proposals. The span for these routes would be roughly the same as what is operated by the current route network. The impact on revenue hours and miles will be minimal. Draft Final Report ES-11 P+�i-I� ATTACHMENT#1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo The implementation of the Year 1 route network will have a fare change associated with it. The base fare would increase by 25% from $1.00 to $1.25. This will have impacts on all other fare types, categories, and media. Along with the fare increases proposed, SLO Transit should work with Cal Poly to increase the amount of revenue collected associated with providing Cal Poly students with unlimited rides as part of the fare change. Year 2 Year 2 leaves the Year 1 route network and fare structure intact. The changes proposed in Year 2 are geared towards improving mobility on the Broad Street corridor. Route 1 service will be provided on weekends to allow access to Broad Street on all days of the week. Year 3 Year 3 will see a fare change as well as having regular weekday service operate on Fridays. The fare change includes an 8% increase in the base fare,from $1.25 to $1.35 with increases to other fare media and categories. Concurrent with this fare change, SLO Transit should work with Cal Poly to increase the amount of revenue collected associated with providing Cal Poly students with unlimited rides. The service changes include modifying the schedule of Route 6 on Fridays in order to provide the same service as the rest of the week. Year 4 Year 4 will add service during the summer periods so that there is a single year round schedule. Also, during peak commuting periods, additional service will be provided on Routes I and 3, resulting in 30 minute service. This will add service to Route 6 in the summer time daytime periods, provide evening service on Routes 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as provide additional weekday service on Routes 1 and 3. Year 5 Year 5 will see the implementation of the new crosstown route as well as additional service on Routes 1 and 3. A fare adjustment will also occur in Year 5. The new crosstown route will enhance the route network by allowing for east-west movement in the southern parts of San Luis Obispo without the need to go downtown, as well as provide access to the hotels on eastern part of Monterey Street. Additional service will be provided on Routes I and 3 to allow for 30 minute all day service on these routes. Evening service will be provided on Route 1 to allow for evening access to the Broad Street corridor. A base fare increase of 11%, from$1.35 to $1.50, is proposed in Year 5, with increases to all other fare media as well. Concurrent with this fare change, SLO Transit should work with Cal Poly to increase the amount of revenue collected associated with providing Cal Poly students with unlimited rides. The following presents the operating financial plan for service modifications that are proposed to address issues identified in the SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan Update. The financial plan is based on the final service plan assumptions for revenue hours, revenue miles and peak vehicles. These assumptions are presented in the following table. Draft Final Report ES-12 - ATTACHMENT#1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Revenue Miles and Hours Revenue Mile Revenue Hour Year Revenue Miles Chane Revenue Hours Change Base Year 389,636 N/A 34,254 N/A Year 1 406,743 4.39% 34,800 1.60% Year 2 417,995 2.77% 35,960 3.33% Year 3 420,260 0.54% 36,266 0.85% Year 4 463,730 10.34% 401506 1 11.69% Year 5 540,506 16.57% 46,226 14.12% Operating costs increase annually due to the growth in the level of service. Most of this growth occurs in Year 4 and Year 5 when revenue hours are projected to increase by 11.7 and 14.2 percent, respectively. Operating costs increase between 4.1 and 6.6 percent annually during Years 1 through 3. In Years 4 and 5, costs increase more than 15 percent in each year. Over the five year period, operating costs are projected to increase by more than.$1.8 million (58 percent) over the base year. The following table presents operating cost projections. Operating Cost Projections Base Year Year i Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year5 Revenue Hours 34,254 34,800 35,960 36,266 40,506 46,266 Cost per Hour $77.08 $79.54 $82.09 $84.71 $87.41 $90.21 Total Cost $2,640,298 $2,767,992 $2,951,956 $3,072,093 $3,540,629 $4,173,656 Annual Chane 4.84% 6.65% 4.07% 15.25% 17.88% Currently, the funding situation at all levels is uncertain based on revenue shortfalls for most funding providers. Most of the funding sources and levels are based on historical funding sources and amounts projected by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). The following table presents expected funding by source. The final line presents the difference between the annual cost and revenue that is projected. Cost differences may be made up by increased local funding, fare changes, or reductions in service. Expected Funding Levels Base.Year Year l Year 2 _ Year 3 Year.4 Year 5 Annual Cost $2,640,298 $2,767,992 $2,951,956 $3,072,093 $3,540,629 $4,173,656 Federal Funding $600,000 $618,000 $636,540 $655,636 $675,305 $695,564 State Funding(STA) $52,655 $52,655 $52,655 $53,971 $55,321 $56,704 Local Fmding(LTF) $1,085,830 $1,070,798 $1,055,315_ $1,071,105:. $1,087,052 $1,103,154 RTA Contribution $501,068 $516,100 $531,583 $547,531 $563,956. $580,875 Investment&Properties Revenues $4,900 $5,000 $5,100 $5,200 $5,300 $5,400 Other Revenues $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 _ $2,000 Fares $522,301 $541,533 $561,528 _ $582,318 $603,937 $626,419 Total Revenue Sources $2,768,754 $2,806,086 $2,844,721 $2,917,761 $2,992,871 $3,070,116 Capital Cost of Contractin $84,000) ($88,200) ($92,610) ($97,241) ($102,103) ($107,208 Total Funding Available $2,684,754 1 $2,717,886 $2,752,111 $2,820,520 $2,890,768 $2,962,908 Funding Balance ($44,456) $5,106 $199,845 $251,573 $649,861 $1,210,748 Draft Final Report ES-13 DI.L -oZ� ATTACHMENT#1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Capital Plan The Capital Plan describes the physical items that are needed for the implementation of the Short Range.Transit Plan Update. The primary capital item is buses that are used for service. Other elements include Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), bus stops, and bus shelters. This capital plan responds to the needs of the proposed network, and includes the following items: • Revenue Vehicle Fleet — The current SLO Transit fleet includes 15 revenue vehicles. The existing capital plan includes a replacement schedule for existing vehicles, beginning with the purchase of six new 35 and 40 foot buses in 2009, four replacement vehicles in 2010, and three additional replacement vehicles in 2013, thus maintaining the current fleet of 15 vehicles. Peak vehicle requirements in the Short Range Transit Plan are 12 for Years 1 to 3, 14 for Year 4, and 15 for Year 5. In order to maintain a desirable spare ratio of at least 20%, it is recommended that SLO Transit purchase two additional vehicles in Year 4 and one additional vehicle in Year 5. Additionally, the Trolley service, which recently received a new vehicle, will need an additional vehicle to serve as a backup. This backup trolley will replace a 1984 trolley vehicle that has reached the end of its useful life. • Bus Stops and Shelters—The proposed route network will alter the location of a number of stops and shelters. Additionally, it is recommended that SLO Transit provide benches at as many stops as possible. Shelters should be provided at all stops with more than 25 boardings per day. Ticket kiosks would be useful at some major stops, including the Downtown Transit Center, Madonna Plaza, Laguna Village, and the Amtrak Station. • Intelligent Transportation Systems — An Automatic Vehicle Locator System (AVL), a new radio system, and a new farebox system are ITS proposal highlights. Marketing Plan Current SLO Transit marketing includes a good system map and schedule that are readily available to the public, as well as route information provided at bus stops. Additionally, Cal Poly students are aware that they can use their student identification cards for free travel on SLO Transit buses. There are two major initiatives that should be undertaken regarding marketing: • Outreach efforts will need to be undertaken when the new route network is implemented, including advance notice of changes, brochures, posting of the new route network in the website, and information made public in local news media. • Marketing efforts should be geared toward joint marketing efforts between SLO Transit and SLORTA to increase awareness of regional transit operations. Management Plan SLO Transit's existing management structure is sufficient for current needs. Draft Final Report ES-14 I ATTACHMENT#2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING - 919 PALM ST. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2008 APPROVED MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Susan Rains called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Susan Rains, D. Gregg Doyle, Denise Martinez, Tracey Amundson, Margaret Crockett, Robert Wolf, Elizabeth Thyne, and Stanley Yucikas Absent: Kathy Howard Staff: John Webster, Tim Bochum, Dee Lawson ANNOUNCEMENTS Elaina Cano, City Clerk representative, issued the oath of office for new MTC members Robert Wolf and Elizabeth Thyne.. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. A. CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items. B. DISCUSSION ITEMS B-1. Late-Breaking News on State Funding Mr. Webster reported there still not any final action at the State level, but noted that at the SLOCOG/RTAC meeting there would be a recommendation for the SLOCOG Board to approve an approximate $177,000 LTF reduction impact on the SLO Transit side, with another possible loss of approximately$76,000 STA funds if they withhold 3 quarterly �N -a�- ATTACHMENT#2 - payments. The projected deficit was approximately $225,000-250,000,000 with STA and LTF cuts combined. Mr. Bochum discussed the SLO Transit revenue sources, noting TDA revenues were already reduced by 10% and there could be a$225,000 shortfall by the end of the fiscal year. He stated staff needed to forecast line item adjustments, including the possibility of raising fares and investigating service reductions. Staff would bring discussion back for the January MTC meeting. Mr. Doyle requested information on what revenue would be realized with fare increases, especially in light of Cal Poly students being the majority of riders while paying nothing. Mr. Bochum replied that if the City loses over$200,000/year revenue raising fares $.25; could possibly get $40450,000 at best and even with a fare increase it still might require service reductions at least for this Fiscal Year which ends June 30`h, 2009. Mr. Yucikas discussed capacity-building strategies. C. ACTION ITEMS C-1. Review/Approve Short Range Transit Plan Routing Draft Mr. Webster recapped the draft plan, inviting MTC discussion on route designations. Route 1: Louise Justice, 3000 Augusta, felt the currently configured Route 1 was important and allowed riders to get to hospitals and shopping and returning on Route 3 in a timely manner. She noted that.Route 1 currently transports YMCA campers during summers and that students in the area used Route 1 all year round. Route 2: The MTC felt a modified Route 2 could be more direct with a route out to Cal Poly. Mr. Bochum suggested modifying it off of the current Elk Lane routing by staying on Higuera(also eliminate Tank Farm/Cross/Suburban Loop)to pick up the two Los Verde Park areas as well as LOVR area and looping onto the RT 101 North freeway and exit at Prado Road and the bus stop for the Day Center as part of the for the inbound segment. MTC directed staff to discuss such modifications with Urbitran and revised the route as recommended for the final draft. Route 3: ATTACHMENT#2 Mr. Bochum suggested keeping Route 1 as it is and modifying Route 3 to accommodate the neighborhood. Mr. Doyle suggested swapping the tails of Route 1 and Route 3 to better facilitate ridership, offering a"bigger picture" gain. Ms. Martinez felt that Route 1 should not be modified. The MTC discussed accepting Route 3 as proposed in the draft plan and having the proposed Route 1 modified not to proceed past Orcutt and Broad and to use Orcutt Road, Johnson, Southwood, and Laurel Lane as the turning point heading back into SLO. The MTC directed staff to discuss modifications with Urbitran and revise the route accordingly for the final draft. Routes 4/5: Mr. Webster noted the Descanso and Auto Park loops might have to be eliminated because of service cuts in this FY. Otherwise, there were no significant changes to the proposed routes. MTC Members concurred and did not propose any changes in these routes. Route 6: All agreed it was fine as proposed. Cross-town Route: The MTC agreed that funding was a huge issue and suggested holding off including it in the SRTP until the budget settled as they did not want evening service eliminated at the expense of adding this proposed routing. Mr. Doyle felt it should either be modified to include the Performing Arts Center area or it should be deleted entirely from the SRTP. The MTC felt that since funding for this proposed new route would still be about five years out it could stay in the SRTP but that the route along with end points could be modified in any implementation proposal at that time. Again the availability of funding would be a key component to any consideration of implementing this route. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Monday, January 14, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary PN I-a`f Attachment 3 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2009 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Michael Boswell, Michael Draze, Eric Meyer, Airlin Singewald, Mary Whittlesey, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commissioner Michael Draze Staff: Deputy Community Director Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Public Works, Tim Bochum, Contract Planner, Jaime Hill, and Recording Secretary Janet Miller ELECTION: 1) Commr. Stevenson was elected Chairman on a motion by Commr. Multari and seconded by Commr. Whittlesey. 2) Commr. Multari was elected Vice Chair on a motion by Chairman Stevenson and seconded by Commr. Whittlesey. ACEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. ACEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of March 25, 2009, were continued to the April 22, 2009, meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. No Specific Address. O 132-08: Consideration of modifications to the current plan line setback ordinance for Broad Street between: 1) Higuera and Pismo Streets; and 2) High Street to South Street. The proposed modifications include reducing the building setback requirements along much of this section but maintaining the setback and other requirements between Marsh Street and approximately 150' south of Pacific Street: City of San Luis Obispo — Public Works Department , applicant (Jamie Hill) Jamie Hill, Contract Planner, presented the staff report, recommending to adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council to repeal the plan line setback on Broad Street from Higuera Street to the southeasterly city limits, and approve a revised plan line setback on both sides of Broad Street, from Higuera to the southeasterly city limits, excluding the area from Pismo Street to High Street which was previously repealed (Municipal Code Section 17.74.130), based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. pp l-a 5 Draft Planning Commission MinuttQ Attachment April 8, 2009 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice-Chair Multari asked if the current proposal was different than the previous one the Commission heard on February 11th. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Boswell to recommend repeal of the Broad Street plan line setback as outlined in the report. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Meyer, Singewald, Whittlesey, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Draze The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. ROLL CALL: Commr. Draze arrived at 7:10 p.m. 2. City-Wide. GPC 9-09: Short Range Transit Plan-General Plan Conformity; City of San Luis Obispo — Public Works Department, applicant (John Webster) Will Calves, AECOM Consulting, presented the report, including the recommendation made by the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) on January 14, 2009: (1) That the report contains a clockwise direction for Routes 1 and 3 (North on Laurel Lane); 2) Recommend that the modified plan be adopted, based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works, provided further information on the recommendations. Mr. Bochum noted there will be a delay in service recommendations due to the City's transit financial situation which has had significant operational funding reductions in the last year. Vice-Chair Multari discussed Cal Poly's construction for upcoming projects including the closing of South Perimeter Road. Mr. Multari stated that Cal Poly had scheduled project funding for University construction for 2009 Summer and Fall sessions. Vice-Chair Multari requested clarification on the Cal Poly ridership and percentage received toward the fare box contribution. Tim Bochum replied Cal Poly ridership and contribution to the fare box was roughly a 60/40 split. Commr. Boswell requested clarification of the contribution for evening services funded by University. PR I-�� Draft Planning Commission Minutes -' Attachment�� April 8, 2009 Page 3 Commr. Singewald requested clarification on the negotiation of fare status with Cal Poly. Tim Bochum replied that Cal Poly had a longer term agreement, in place for 5 years, expiring in 2011. But that the agreement did not include costs for evening service. Commr. Whittlesey requested clarification on the timing for purchasing the equipment and the ability to update equipment to high tech/hybrid/electrical fuels. Tim Bochum replied that the alternative fuel capital equipment purchases will be considered when purchasing vehicles particularly if Federal stimulus money is available. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Louise Justice, San Luis Obispo, spoke against the fair increase and re-route of transit #1. Ms. Justice referenced the letter she sent City Staff and the Commission. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boswell thanked the Mass Transportation Committee and Public Works Department for route improvements, bus stops, maps, and night service. Commr. Boswell requested clarification on the re-routing of transit #1 and #3. Staff' noted that due to the current financial situation, the plan had altered changes to re- routing until possibly 2010 '.Mr. Boswell noted that changes would also be made during lower transit periods such as when Cal Poly was out. Vice-Chair Multari thanked Ms. Justice for her comments. He commended Ms. Justice for raising the level of meeting discussion and focus on elderly and handicapped transit requirements. Mr. Multari requested information on staffing and services proposed. Tim Bochum provided clarification on proposed staffing and equipment. Vice-Chair Multari suggested that the Parking Fund contribute to SLO transit. Mr. Bochum replied with discussion of the programs for downtown employees. Mr. Bochum replied that the future economic situation could consider alternative funding options, including grants in aid for seniors and the handicapped. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Vice-Chair Multari, to confirm the environmental determination, and consistency with the Circulation Element in recommending the Short Range Transit Plan be approved by the City Council. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Draze, Meyer, Singewald, Whittlesey, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None P" I-�� Draft Planning Commission Minutes — April 8, 2009 Attachment($3 Page 4 The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff a. Agenda Forecast 4. Commission ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Janet Miller Recording Secretary ATTACHMENT#4 — city osAn luis oaspo- Community Development Department•919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 9-09 1. Project Title: Short Range Transit Plan Update 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: John Webster,Transit Manager (805)781-7121 4. Project Location: Citywide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 919 Palm Street s San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 s 6. General Plan Designation: N/A ± f 7. Zoning: i N/A 1 i i CrTY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2009 S The City o1 San Luis Obispo Is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ATTACHMENT#4 8. Description of the Project: The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is a planning document that reviews the financial and operating health of the City's bus service, and proposes service changes. The SRTP also includes a Service Stop Master Plan, which reviews bus stop locations a4d proposes bus stop standards. The SRT? is a document that is incorporated in the Regional Transit Plan. The proposed update to the SRTP will not result in any new significant environmental impacts consistent with the analysis contained in the environmental document prepared for the SRTP in 2003 (ER 101-03; Attached). All potentially significant effects of the SRTP Update were analyzed adequately in this earlier Negative Declaration. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The setting for the SRTP is the city limits for the City of San Luis Obispo. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Adoption of the SRTP. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. j 3 i it it CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY EWRONMENTAL CHECKUST 2009 P+� 1-3D ATTACHMENT#4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing a Resources �. 11 FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a no effect determination from Fish and Game. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development)_ The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). a 1 ;1 I C17Y of SAN Luis Ostspo 3 1NmAL STunv ENwRorwENTAL CHEciaisr 2009 8 9 P� i �3I ATTACHMENT#4 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be vrepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a`potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required. X J V Signature Date J T Pamela Ricci,Senior Planner For:John Mandeville, . Printed Name Community Development Director CITY of SAN Luis Oenspo 4 INmac STUDY ENviRowATAL CHEcassT 2009 ATTACHMENT#4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#101-03 1. Project Title: San Luis Obispo Transit Short Range Transit Plan, 2003 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis.Obispo,Public Works, 955 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Austin O'Dell,Transit Manager, (805)781-7121 4. Project Location: City of San Luis Obispo (Citywide) 5.. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Austin O'Dell, Public Works Department, 955 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: NA 7. Zoning:NA 8. Description of the Project: The Short Range Transit Plan (SRT?) is a planning document that reviews the financial and operating health of the City's bus service, and proposes service changes. The SRTP also includes a Service Stop Master Plan,which reviews bus stop locations and proposes bus stop standards. The SRTP is a document that is incorporated in the Regional Transportation Plan. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The setting for the SRTP is the city limits for the City of San Luis Obispo. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Adoption of the Short Range Transit Plan 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: San Luis Obispo City Council, City of San Luis Obispo Mass Transportation Committee, and the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission. r Y i N S �nn I ij i if i It I t i " ATTACHMENT#4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils; Public Services Recreation Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service system Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Si cane Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources 1 FISH AND GAME FEES j X There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such,the project qualifies for a de minimia waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. r The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been u circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. 3 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 3 This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more } State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and 3 Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines a 15073(a)). l l 3 a a t i CITY OF SAN Luis Oels?o 2 INITIAL STUDY BMRONM WAL CHECKLIST 2003 ; pU7-3 , ATTACHMENT#4 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and X a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. T find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or.the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be luvared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant" impact(s) or`potentially significant unless mitigated"impact(s) on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed prcject,nothing further is required. July 22,2003 Date a(J .SeNo..J—�0, —✓•rwhi a For.JohnMandeyMe. Printed Name I (� / L Community Developnedt Director m J�41! c J�La/•�.� 5 i J� 5 CfTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 3 INITIAL STUDY EN mowE 1TAL CHEp0.t3T 2003 P+� I-35 ATTACHMENT#4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EWPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to polluters,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. 'Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significanL If there are one or more'Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less than Significant Impact" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,'pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D)of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such a effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project a t 1 H s x i N F t h 1 7jt>� Y R CITY of SAN Luis Owspo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKmT 2003 F per-3V Discussion and • •• Information I or 1 wli«:n m 1 nrr I v. :i' (CAYM 1 1 1 1 iV a�r rxv,�`t''�'''tm•��--_© L+�1t..�ti}�) MEMME'rKGr t Ytrlt� rtr cliur�Y`xt� } a. tto br I E( Ie�,-n1Y �.'e{Iti`{4zltE �'1' +jSrL �` e .47 a rtt{ d�R�it E't I II +-r' i 5 - x .r i 1.1 ur f E U I<� �V a •�'S'n L y�r t \.�fy.t t< e•7:•5� Z_..� h..--.r.vy�C 1}S'R�jf�i 7 +�ti.,�'tr�ti)i_}ry-1.aY t� ���;4,.i1 a-rP tl�,rr�": Does not apply. This SRTP recommends bus stop signs and bus passenger amenities at new bus stop locations. these feaftwesare 11. there iH be 11substantiallyadverseimpact1 1' aesdwdc1 I III 1' of the new bus stops. / 1 • o1' 1 9 �r11t� �r• ��t F� r3�}0����r.V-F:..'-)I�,rC��1tiIT1�"\1 !�3 L�r.l}°�.L J•L Ll plc'..<,'4r1� $:"trj,j t31!Ia�l�e0 I11f ti I'iY`lpti{ik(a�^r`,r��-E�t-f• k=.:S .ttYfoxs'tSx µr .li, y A A}���}t�e f fniS {�1°tk.eY I pttyl �il4fil I�+ 2141v513 T }i'}�r< i T x i n 1 !i n I•�Ir 1 f°��f�� �o��Soo�i}�n�Y,'r`•`' �'"�-.�1`2a ���tid E�.r�til fc�'f i5 r j'3i..•'.-�`��h �ti� MIN EMM t ci-15�ttiI�• r"�`4S�•1`5.3,� tir,�?,.�„5`',.Jr t+.�Y'µ� �:r ��c� t L+�vE�a.� _FS7i�)e*�lw Ali--•`-3�ltir?r r.-t,-�:�+: .-..:z•',..< � �^__ ♦>sl4 `s' Sa .� -�'', t_. n tom...»:: S•>v)r�+,i 1• 1• y. .-✓. 1 1. L 1 _.. :I 1 1 11 3. • 1 Would 11 I U -'IeV( �`�"�Ci iit�I�e F'S'X`.4� xlti l___.•- i`�"o5 -FiotIS7.�41at Arlt/E'��r� rcti•-}� 1--_-® ):'-eF-w' S. `rte '� 3r c.}--r•-� i .� i.r,. ,�7,. t a N { tl k� "� it a -•Jt a�,^ti s arc^'-n re?'All-.,^:�- )•Y„dYM qi4 L 'k a tt t x I xx-ti`.�'�. •.</fiW�r}-4L ,�vfITt•' irt` wyr{.��++! �S. Q7 yt rif tnrl^d t?`•"N S1 1 1 N ilYl)4•II vSti�( `1'1 -+1 l i C gyp; �''' �1 4 •F f , k �.1 � � h.�n1 I� r>'•1 3 rMH i! Fj S a St2 �le•1 a l�yr .r'>1r�1 _r��bl�itilY.-}1 ;1 etxtiJ -cl a}r. YI� C II ir-lx} f�i'j. da x r3 r'$N� �a1" y JIL1 s z >,- Fl���hti )(J�'] �l�c util ,�1 rt s e n�<Sp-,;1„tr ti t y1"}t1v-)✓ 'r 1Tl-4� iS3 S l"`-` 5iy*7.a� *v_1tr )x CV Yy,7"r5 `?�Y�j y1•-'ii{ k (L c".^ %! Y�'�)r v ^.X� i.ir—t•�'<<ti2 ��'„�54�1.�.��sil.tt � 1t7Y F..1�i rTr�I t-Tyrl•�F�'rlel"�! I� i rr tS1'y 1•�J Ej 5�� � i����1�5��~Y"M�c�—Ifl}{�y ` et jc�4rf�•�+ r j�0 rhl:�>rf Y."GC'(wl2J. t" 11111 '1•:111 1 q- I1 1• .11 1 I 1 1 • 1 i" 1• I1. •l1 1 t tl x.1 1'1 ' I I1-' 4 1 4 WIN 1 t 1 :14 I it . I I 1" 11•1 1-I ti t 11k.".. 1 1 w :1.11 1 1.111 1 .11"11' 1-1 I-.'-„' "�.,:� +•�,y»� 1J.t l� Sil^Sin cry�il ',c `�b +...t �rl�.'S-• r 1 'f`�d',SJ•r �lsr? � r J OJ 4 r�t� �"' 4 ru p �•+~nrt_i=1 �*I n�SzlfjJS(se.flia4l lJu.-.o1..,,ts13'e -,yr1 �,�� S,r7�4�4 f�•'cy 'E na}i `t�) syem' -rv;r r -• a" � Y ^�- ✓ at' �a � �''�,e<r. o•l .,1nr fti�l,3aSy5r�sl'�tEuY I` v t`2r91 ��t r.,,1 ! tl }I �'y wt�..Sj✓re ari e I�J� ty(I�rav1�. 1�2tL �'47 �h!t 7e (tii 1 7 1 11 r r v ����© � kTS j } x > x �r \\fl-I d•,,.•.:� " t h j+i�"J-. �i.41 � r'd.lslt-4 r�- Issues Discussion and 11 • Informa tion • :I rm •1 r.:n •r 1. v n n�:n i l l aril FCAnir BLrtxill�lyC�iv CLI�I.�l l'I �i�a Wit% ] +Itn•t � �LIl •)I exlrLl L t 'L'11I J S 4 3 S�`;. a y ' r C '1.v I t I + �4-'N x Y 3A 1•ZI .t�'T., + hC [fir+f f yl Gei h 1 A�r•a'a i`tl I��tl� !A` �SFiiI1T 41 c�rxx�J I �ltkfq{yC Jc��i 1 ? Yf }S// > ., '1 ! `'11A .blxY x £5 v IJ' 1YI Ir 'T■■-.� ��; Y�tl Il�th I�f it Jtl ea.}a-' 111 C a•[rl`�3v1,IlY},le F', a ti.A.Ilo r1` xff�L $'c Ft t !v .IN. ,A'�tl' a ]Y rbc fl/'c: I lnl Jr Y f V I i1�J ry Ar ixu9 �L'1 t t1�a_f j�l 74� 1}"t'K' 9rXi(�IC.�� x,.� i°Sl a1s ? I1.J r' �3. \t a"ti Altj y ° c7� Ji7 \] + y1ti lt�eCF t 1+3tix., q`�ASIQw�I i,,, i.Y !••.j4 ! I x � �l r � -.ti M' �r. \�y I _ yit x '�xi.t}U�F'-] 6 l t 5 iti f Yi]Yer 11 w`\«4j 1i•A6 7J1 ) 111 Y 1i Vr5 xRt J� '`(»I rv{w :f A'C i K '1 44 .T el;,I; 1�ixJ 't1t {�aY=i��rlA.0 JIT9�[e�?� i �•�xjZ'2'Se r�'?.t� xn��i v��� Si y �rx •.,a ie "^+rrid Exal 1)Of k W M,�n�a�T�v'✓Ir�i r.T�r<����z� �i2C�„li�SiV:teri�-,1"}��u`� li �le°lr.{-�R��'��>}!k eC�,r{[F•�f><(,�-'ixx���xi'( i �i�a o�(� c '1'6., x�. �,,• ..l n..•aF�•-I-'y a �"'r IJr"�—r-'3a �11�� '�r'r II'y l T�'...•r.. f "u S i .1 t 1 PC n 14 /1 l L 31n 1 1 1 .1,. s- .0 •- 11 11 1 G.I I w- � I Y. I 1�IlY 1 1 i ' ' ' rtj ' I I 1 1 1 1 -.1�7 Mir i•x 1 rxlt...e...r� 2 nJj �SrLx i'l eei�lj til Ix4„f �jixv s RX, J �l���i,`;rc�,t[rlt r"`}[Id��,,�;;•,'�r''i '.'��°--r 4��er• f 4r d'�`�,4 ^�'{i' �•��� I >YCI s��l iIi_J�r.+[i I tt fll iT T',.�rr� `rls J l�l kt','�•?'r 1✓< a, x r,S'���.txr•'.a :;iarllTi�"�fa"`yi5a I���S}�lwh',J,c��,lill�•k1�7ti�L`at•Ux,�X�� i°`�'Y`!--�_® �r �C,i 1�• 1 � I:SLi6 x '•74 w�'Y;..�ri.41 PFay' r< c t-'C �vv� _ �.� __ ____ .•4rha�e. v' 11x..• • 11 '1 1 I 1 11 •n1 x - .1 I I 1 I doesnotpropose 1consuuction grading 11. 11 w: - . Y.111• 1 1111•.wA 1 1 1 1 1 ' proposes 1" installation of small bus stop sips 151 free standing posLThe culftwal resourceimpact 1 I 1 theinstallation . bus pull outswill beassessedaspart of individ1w1 I MI:from developers. 1DID AMMV.110— l.ntfl.' ;:[?,iz F ! .7, M � �� ''er .y ..�� tA•y J9 •.atm �� arc �}ilal �j [r,�r l ,[ I,It I(?y°. ttl l�ti il,y1 s:'•x•. x.� l �� .rl�f���+ I !` r• fir• l _ �y+,.i�T9,$ti�/���?�. i( Ajt<x\I,el'�}y'•tryiy�94 lei In t4 a nll�? ��[T�� 3C�x��fi�.�4+vE t '"aYyJ.{-,IP1 T`C1SIk�0 9j rI 131, �1J�dL�T( l{aI'Ly[3a f,�WA•.� 1 ex5 atM MEW© ut - h-' tl I T •{t1 f. 'C- r u' r Sx'.� �,�'V6t •lt'7,__�I^, v 1_`�JC__e.�__ 7e i �`r `�i 4•..L ��,j-r+^w� J: 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 �[I[• "I F I � 111 1 1 1 1 .1 1 S I I I r 11 1 ' o Ute— '+�,.� sJs ejr�l eu A.l nn1 ei 3y `l.t[Pl�`'•olid SJ]h!1�S in ti r `tIY S'. Jy1'P•ci'7;r f R5;1 3,rni,r '..-a.'•r� ��'>1�[[-�f� ?,�2r'jS 131r L�P,l n 7?�r�'i �x[fe�1j`p[ r J'-4,. � r 4a )y lnr'� jtFi jn'9{ [I l"1,=t1"+,qi'•G 31rn 71 t 3�Y xl rn L � xl�CS�> �el;•aj"ia v I J _api 3 xo'e ef;�uJ'�-I.e I�d']I lx� 4[;3 x �s��i� �KJr���''n'��'j'°i ',^4[er eZt 1 ry. S lr•. Its 13�- t)c'�>""�.��^L�S Z�lel�' �. l T' N ^t1 LJ S'yr lxtr(�I1 ejllld i 1 i ext �oAt a Ili{e,•l <c t 11I �'t,.-X ns�o �d t:,i `J)f LY.u'�?- �c� 31 _ aA, l ���f I'F 'tl){Ilat u� I-j6�2 j$ i°�I°7 3a�of •_��_��© f'vc F j .1' t t cF"..�.� r'A r a {'� 5` �l 1•y._ 4 ' t � 1r{G+1 r F!„ t.[(� lln xF5•�. rt x�.5°f T n �. \ I I? � � —© 'IC I,tl��l {1It{rxr�1/r °Yu: }t �.'� I 'J -1 ,•..7� i`i'i ��✓i1�I i�.li'1'�y'J*J-I��'l��l-t fir'�.i+ '��---© :�K:as�s�e tu�r.�.i�� r�a� _.f,^�,�e ..s;,� �yF_4..•°.?�r!:J�.,!,:..,,>,fi'��v3?��r:?h'���_---® 1, F 1 • 1 1 1• • • . 'r�. :q _ 1 r u r r F �r Gr E _� t,it ' of r S.:t`✓.7�'�4 t ti;- S,fiv110 7,�c}.itt }cl�cr)r 1y aY I `+r lL 4-{ m, i. rG 4 J" '$t a.� 4 h N rM f' Jt f sex■■-.■ r✓ ,.t "rd, «JI '� alA,j<7:�3h h,Y���r�IUI,r Yljvc a tt! '� 'ja�.t N + -� � s �` I r r_ I , r .•S.}L � a I x r fq, r.y� rr� r rn i Yy � jj rftj� �i�<c f £� crc r �,eC3tSJa r 2xl lar t?{`r;Y�I �J(r Jal a�3ca�■�-.© 1 „1 ' I, •Y.1111 . 11 ' 1:'`11 111. 11 1 •� Iy,1 r W :„ lYlOt}{.7 y!" ✓ avr +}V+ e��'�o '`^)It5 r'Y"`•....1,��`]', S 4 . �I.1 r nMEN r a w L'T fJ� .K i LTt711Si2t..r'VEi"i�d(-{ v15n�hrdrtrloit ;llS ! fY �� fx r n=� ■■-.© .s ..✓ t iry� < '. d i r �.�*rM3. -'' ,r ,y n�r ,+ ie • F2; IrTr y Ir,�< 1n,i7 �� c e a�Fa� ,t }�.+ At+ L y r t Yu3i�.�. .t.. Y ..,7• .{y/x .n."�,s..�-,. +v��a0 rT..T Sr-k E_ i w C '�. /f � i .•r i t ,r 'y r/�x� f z 4f> rV�`Ier,,Cr51�t tT�f2j r., I ,}I°<. �■ 7 tires .,f b} y o `�� i ji5,�-Isflje�Jt 1-{-S✓��°jt k��. "}a,�ll�L f L lne�ell���ie r�� r �, ``�j r t1'A.tii � rr-,� �.................... '-�"< r�.F: rl �`-r.k-...C�i'jie��2-'-`'. ti i�jer 1•Ie)eFrii rc ..Y,t/"'Q ltl a, l.WYt >t— .74r� '�<f$S'r"t ra3u (1 ..✓ k. J. �M-c- � �.1 ,t.�e.��l... �J93Jte�le ettr Ei i �i1�y 7 Op F M�f ?�sa�i7�e� � t � +n Lrrdtr EI� of ` 13e 1).li.w�asYe7�vF e �Itiit"EiF, �!r cS lu�t�il9ti�X(c7 �p a�' �7 i�'11 MEN d ,tr -.* Ir 'r i. ♦ 7s~� v( t s ry}-h} 4 -.Z.t i .© t jE.'�Iri7, a e)rt"er"le5 ,>a 1 a �IiI Sc+�u� il3"C Ll rl j{T�' `~' ■� t; s X 1,r urn ra,7th!y^ F'!G.9�S-aYll.'1l`d-�:1-{sii'DIFsS�1 .S<ttin'�,ta rS.w�y�c2 J:. +iLxF j,.cl'.,(-iTX°trhit�rYf 1tc�1 �a '�l� r f:.{ :ry ��1 h �■■-.© 1f+,�' 1I r'�R,_}ct 1� J� 9-tiJ�l•,41{J. ...'a'Ce.,�.5�st`ft eYri I fy A`lt 2'� ( 4rhK � � Gr Ir. '�. 1'>•$v e �/, h jr IM I. x1 NEON 1 1 1• .I J a •' 1 ,r r n, • a 1 ✓. •1 I I - 1 .1�, I t • 1 JI`. aVl l.0 i 1t Et At'1tf, 11 r rt (ti C t t Cpl If..�J ryT tN611 . i syr" a L=, �_�� 4 x Y"7�r`r•�. Ct '' } F w\ ,�t}r ,t r{�f. r a'Y�{{! <yl S�JI 1 °. (ta Lrns� EI15c� Ifa?T'"Ca19�n aS,xl laC S � � JN s a J`is•Iii v�", tt t, r v : P�c ,;}..a>tt r e J AM, 11 j;y.l�.lr Aytr IJi�J��Y(,(rsJ hi�.Y +etj 4 Ve} J t t l M1{ttl i�.G }�yl'}`� I s,''-^£ ry x r y9' t 1:�'1 l C 1.3•tU �i Z, lds'. ��cC rL citr,c�,����yn i b �ifl�va r `Y t, S7 t rfe'l}T}I t S7f7.+ IV, f5 �a ! �ri i5iA�a}s�ej�ir"�ryPS's]Tt lal t� hd�l�6'�e�t9 I tleh id La all �r���1 I -..77 I !r dol .�tu errs a ? �ui}ll tl51aY lT✓ ..v,r„7h ry5 _�.5. ...d..�l.,....... ..1. >._.cis..__ n N . •- 1 1 �-• .d 1 1I I/ Discussion . I .• Information SourcesI :11 I -t I:II r v♦ I .n m 1.:n rl « u l iu• r a I r ` l��yFr t]lGjJ�� G,.F 'I EF rfi V J i �rE yi ah Ski ly ;>~F r`" I ,x aB� Y-t �1 I Dry i .Fal F .,i ]4 relq 1t1 • N'`°b N^'� F Ir w•w 11Y� •v r r S 7 at r kJ x f S-r a 1. r- < !N r3 q i 7 ■- �r Ir r.,1'� : rf'n M � I. y�U" i v ✓i �t. tN Y „�,.170 4�Z. Tx h' t„ r'r�rab s � + �- 41 ! '• t J1�41r 2 1..� c v ^ � �. P N I:yxt �-'"+ ` el-i..rfl �f � I'1.�� . 1T'-(J f•�i tilt- ye♦ II.`fj e(� �iZ`{�lG�esxtl ' r\� .I �''� iy"u •. fA < a.�.uJlw iJ tYl ljli t '{ L t �+ Y y rt t( r t,t� l t j �i IYijy 1 Iy-a��) Io 6{ tty.A� ♦j ail Tom . NONE 9 �'•ie � r 1's' r �'^JLC Y: r J �.� •c.a Se xC' `.Y ��."I✓ � °� e 4 � � �Sr (I 1 eRilaC� �� l z y ti a� i�r. +.Ip Iv}t(Ya' 4�4 a .t• a. ���°-ice vatidli {e['tisir4 S4G'[a ?Ttia��u�rel F f"� IJP)\Yr��l,r TD`S i�` y°% F. r v s ' �:t G.. ♦L"' + SII v n a .r t C u�'�tS 3 �lY ��.5.7�� CI ly � �(•1 Il V l' �'1' � Y nir L t IIIU -ll al r: 1 1 a 1 tl a l 1 1 fll a..• 1 1 1 a 1 1� I�- _ I� LY �, tC E,.MS Z C4Y r.�3 Y �I N ' r fy■■.�© rytt'♦l<.�J.C.i�.S� TI eC��IS [ s(jt YY l IuYe('e).r Sacl al( e : IC t+`rdl .� yl A Y I y'j yiJ��rcrl �'loil���Tr � Lle�-?� Dlla�il��ia rlj I>r"'` ?♦�+�r F c,r C sJ4i Z c. i 'C t t�.'r•s _A 'ti.�9sF � < F:.:�w.v) 6��tr.�+•� t� en+.�nc�..t� a f7e fes`_ ✓i S`a `a(:�Y ti no�t��Y^l�r I iL �® 1- . 1.FIM 11' I I rola. 1 ,III 11 11 al' WvromM.FIT )(�I{o`D''y ra" r'�a- Its110 ay� j✓a�.�r1�T! I ^ro�+•i �' It`\ rFXr.vi"alo�'7�~iy���•[i'—S'1 If I Y[a� 'v y-� r S MENZr �Fxa r�lteY1 f.a}�♦fir IJ' j� Fi al mil Mti..'-F L, IU, y.`tl t(as { 41 AI !�1 Eti Ye . ^y.E I 1 .00 ITO, I G 4,r+ ! >I I P LT�T:p 9 l J (,. f It h { ^ti Y r .4' ti 1 �11rr♦ * 1•� � ccl Ir cq N y'Ct Fl.Sll i�1F 1 �F;F t 1J1�ti1 l rX � '' Sk�I:car t--�—© G -u4 .4.a" /' +v�y 2 ,3�!7+G't•� yx 'L`r,�. / I t�.�- _!.,•.�j JF 1 j r N r laY r A ti r f 1b IIF' f 1 j-.1n)I+lii Yl111 Nf�. q ♦ � I .. 7 w 4 A� i rti1 r-. -..- [✓' T ay c r W'?A,c )d. 'r rqpw Pywaa.I DIS c�ix D+�D Fdol�ter`.7,�5F1 SjCt�tlL 4 I���IY iSP} ]'iyr��l� [i°a q rT 7 S.i7 l r }`; � l�J�� .•.c 4_ .h 4. J'.��,- , MEMO 'w� !: I- . Ia1 - I a ba Ja_ Ialb '111 II a1 ✓.• 1 Ill.It - 1 I' 11 1.11• 1 h a .' 11• C 1 LIY17�9 1 �4)yt:aJ a�TN't��l-yl�o\�]i il. l� f ��.t� it�J d t+ �"9 ? 17T{` ja."� R -tu r ,fir�J•� ,. 4 rt 'h f lyy ]�EyS y a1 jY X4'r• w �s c yY S} J t�� 'S:. > sly' 1 I� ,.4 r r. es�l R ti j�a I ��r i 1. +-L i•)r e 5� - �. 1F '-.r Y.CP X'<i,..y t urvi.-43 � +`^ iti f"~y`Yj "'fi i 13 `;•-.} ` \y�4 r� t t'aM- �'?^I ?]rFFiv t• fac'jc...A I�S Ii iFll(llF(r'•F �o� i ,ilei'S1f �!•�" -r�1 �lia�.°l<� P !�.al r�-l�r:�� t• _Z�y tOy-... '+T ^Tt l 5.:<y....�.�*711.�I�-� rt r,� 1 y� � ai' t1 Ila III .11.1 •�^��..1 I I I 'ill' 11 11• ..l M I �' •I l 1 a I.17 1 11 AI 11 .rl JI 1 M:III •11 1 .�I 111 1'l:It1 1 1 11 :11 13.PU13LIC SERVICES. Would tl project 1substantial1hysical impactsassociated I 1 ' provision, 1 need, 1 new physically altered government II w 1construction 1 which couldcause significantenvironmentalII I M 11 order 1 maintain 1 «: 1ratios, 1 11 :s or other performance 11 VI for any 1 1public ( 1. tl1lf(cf T(r :! li 5 hh°�!t1 5 rr hS 11N4E�,en ris Il �-v 55� t� aL 1 1111 :111 - 11✓.111 1 I- Ilii 1 '" • • 1 1 tl Y.111 1 11' 1111 II JI1 • • 11- �1� 1 Y.Kt-}� a x ^r w°'- ti^cl.� );c} >S h y„-Y�■■-.® i <1 ZN�tlt�"yelur{^r31tv{MI'�' '�i3 t.,.•1�r,Ld e,�`1L7�'�L v" P3E I Ffs' YC}tH•°�C�o.�S-''r�+.i� T� � 1�oTifYl ve^II°fn�t^ 'te 1.�� �!4 r'`t3 �Ws:S ytas liv)t�)L3 l�r,X'[d�l'L�Rfr tql l'i��.� ! �!)aldi r.iel"Ir6+� �rl`Lig`I(•\C�a 1Ore 1ti11 I 1"'J:t i111 11 11 ' 1 1 .11 :,• . 111. Y. •ti .III 11 1Y. 111111 1- • '.1111. Y. t ' � ■ � 1 ° 1 1 t 11 1 ..+,[+1aT 1�4n v,1,,4 y111Y• e t Ifxs SCI�o\�a�+l'd'Y c!c ltc,�" t"3 T {'(s a' if� +�j TiY ST(!l''l�..sow•i'k1i119T�rry.1"kl����...�")r+o ct�"�in�'F, 3, 7r.'`„1 a+(C{.1 y64',.a.7ra^ci.li Yli vtS,�Y,' hTr ilex V^�i "� < u1 1 ��,. ?�.tf � 7� tl ,]�l i°41. SY,rTa>n'�L_ vS i� F�'f� � fey v � r�tr}�•{, '1`,1 II�srl'i dli f11°F'i i L i;it r'"Y:rrls� ,c'c L ,Yfti�iiY" r Ji �] .44x1{k 91Y c �i� ”[ 3'�'"e"-"fL' f f -•�}r �T \r Ih _2 ■■-.© n-a% n`4s -�c i1Ul�r� i (Yet.iat 1�N� ��y�'.I as ,µf e.t-iy t [✓IT<��Y'�e�.r�T ls'i�I��k'tii�t�a{IS�� �); s�C1�_-„�;�#�I:�Y ry~la'Ai_---© �4 4'6,'i�,•a tcv C°�",er-c� rcle�lrTe�^o°a j'r iSt 17 if Y'�0�^�� r� � �r� t �--_-© 4 r"("'r- -x ly. SI`t ..'v .. �..r Las. k'e''u`i �aa 7� T,■■-.® r _e°1 li Wit,ii✓1 � S'L..... __ >...-. _.�=u.::_ _.. 1 1 IBI 1 1 11' 1 « Uri 1 `-11-1 I' •1. 1 I I' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I! 1" I I' -1 traffic onCity streets 1 :I I M I I .'III' I t' citizenrye1 use the local bus ( .I V F 4r +t i -ii n i -10. 1 I L�f..i ��i'A+� �_ 1 r{�•..:IIr�YI !� 1: '( <Ie1E y�:1'` 1 °` r„Iti��t St��.L��7 j�1�A +31�Zyt j.yljaaS� of r�n�il L�Iriy�O)lil hl(s;�s/I1�, • LN s ti Imo,-:r;Xywa�`TC11-,L l�. wt—iJSI 1/r716r 51 I�4 e�4JfrA ti1aT ° t� ({ Y rtr ��cf iil�.Ic(e�a(.�S�IIt�Ivi t'1>,17r�1efe t1e S,r,la l..i{��ry'' 4a1•ri�els��l 1 �b1 �. f If: � ;c t, t..l, i •.,� t-1 i s v+!`a >•YrS t� 1 �'�. 1K rlkar"Sia aurlut ,le•{a. lu%7�1. ,(�`7 t yYil7 viC4-aL„t ' +�:7 MEMO ~ >Y r F x .s 4 jyy�a-.l��. y J } ./ L. � �IYf! IIAt}II!!' 1 IIjYJy �(5�G N ;{■■�.© L° c ,' _„_,�l'C f�ti•1��� 1 YF4 '( lel:h)111 r via !1[.1 iii I -1 irilisl�Y Ill 1�c �i����© .')._ri--i�•.�✓'f•w°�:a/��._�1:a°a�.ja�ISI�.>t � 61.•)t(.vrd �.l.Gl IC Ip(�1�t�i;t1 I� 1 l 11 1 • • • , • • • • i^ 'i• -err ..r i :r itl u i rir.Lr F 'i.,4} �5 G� � i�J a l.ir ols r -rL�S_� ✓tr. .f�. � 'rr ttk� { t 'y - f i�2' 5(2y a J 1 cir �(lti ft � rdE' Vjla hull. 1 q�}6F UrQ cAI rtx �} r'2 fi1 a' ,L01 11•II[itµit T I 2 }[U' IY.✓ r�f�'WIS ✓ �`\ lts' 6hz t,`, »r, F� a :<� 'S yt•'nt{� rl X �1� F 1� � � 12(^moi 4Y�,f�y�����© ai r t Y LaY r 'rC-eU' �In r!y TJ[ e`Si r NOW nl. .11 1✓. , .L I 1.- Y' I L "I I IIs.. /L II , I,- r a «- �II• 11 Q1 1 1 • 1 M 1n-31G 5_ air�q� L'li ol.s ,\J rs'I�sd`�r,•G�'I��J y Inl ''! ..=.-.1T11..3ti°:�J'4ot+<z':�3>r�r•.1L\..�-.+�J.,�',�'�`1.:.��a'cT�'�.�y.�l.?S&� - a 1 111• -II' I•:11 G I 1 II 11 1 III•. I l 1 1 1 1 � e ,tir�llr'al I ej'7! i' �,3,.' J5Tr}?rel t"(-�ii t�k�iriso S1N- x,14 e^•9 � 1S✓s S�` L;.I J J ♦sr 1 f a`,f x ..e d ----cr U iG7 1r14C"< I�'tl.10 lx[ Is' ( Ir}n'ar 1: Y , Irl r :{II ' ilr. 1 i i • 1' y' �1 I• 1 I 1 1111 al«, sill•... •. —{-•�c'C .r -... a.�-'�:' �.r^.a~i J 'u l:a r'q'T�� -r t I r�r° {L.Ii\:f JT•S( c#��Fd ✓ t+.iy����,dL�I'�It�vn�, Ye�(jSa jLi illt�,� t '.jJ. t`~-rte-�ArT 1 -. I> � ,sir � { 1 crjL\ �f tv51'rµr �.✓. 2rr S:n�®®-.© 1 U, -.7,7 I"M-• I q i I ,' 1 i l 1 1 i s •• ,,I 1 r,1 1' i 1 r• , j.« n _ • � •• 1 I I P\• 1 : 11 i TS urs C �' r`f la i5N Ri r�Sr,j- '1"-.-te n�.♦Tt-.c,-r. T""d a^u v'_5� r `1>' rd'I 'rl:r ti ti F� -q 1+�'�4m'sr o.c tt ��;� � i v�._f rY f4.v A7}'"! t'ua'T; 4 I�At,Jtr.��¢�i �r7�c`e�,�, }.!yi is"%`j��(5 �Sa..l�r�� 4r�' w�•1'e�Y IY 1' +_iy 3t�'a vi�� 'IS r�' L r 7� K�11 air IF+"-r �' 1 to•^�c^alr'� 4:od� i}r � z-r�f4 i"` lf" - v rt '�{S *-��t ",, ♦ f� , 'A' .l x' i ati ✓. � h� a 3. 4ja7 '' t 'i r �.. yN1 - > s 'F z >S,a',i� i rqC > V �� r s's'I 1 i H�. 1-„al I .era r♦� '�p ra � tii it1 .-'41I)s�1 I>�l'1 Iela l3��irr s '��y plc.fia er vj��t l aF4 ar '( ♦n c ti r J} y r c:. ..}_ Ni � 1 r r Fft's f1 y Ir RI rtr{rstA Illy I��!. GI✓b �n��r{Y 1149aSI i r r t{iC{i � Y3�Ic3�a�d tl 4C f C�yC � Ir) S'��7�y»,`i r�T lljtt rI1 f r L f ["SI I ut �K.-IE1[ .� t z '. � 3F nr•� K �+' r f•+.7— ':, L ♦ v s l k -4 � >y f .�. 1� ii 1 ; I•Y "t 1 i f 4 I"' r Y Het. 2" "ry; Cvr U 5 Fi v �'ti PYzr>;r. l 4';F?_.r.ali a� 3 1.i t l I 11 =•. n:✓•,�!>J.11 �y..�i,tt)t�l ter-j����..<1..�.i..s...L::�� y�: �Y..'. _�5.. ;....: � }n r.,'.!_.'7'��+�{ c�stf:�e_. r*v'� �/1AlY s!1 IIrI rli��It : ��`'l 3A?X ' � z� jL:"1�liry�l \l f�u c }I I �1t L r r tr• .:..A""T�I » �'a'.+Ic a-'_'A' �hiiIYc}s �e-at f i'�.�N!e...rrN� t �"�.., v�s♦. ..s :,.tea.. Z t r l M1iyY�{-JL 2Y5yT„� t-S-Y \ Y.l-.4 _ I �*ax eC} phi i' F. (}(f tt{;:�It 1 o-•3 ♦. �'.l 3y'<� T Y ,7.A.ylf 1'4}�n' 5�i'<{IAf/ � vo.r A �' G� r r _ �' k i� '!C2 <f __:::a..^..L� ,:'r f -,.,:_...r i• �.... V'sn.. �. �3..ti M1-,Sr.- -s _ix +� >S �.. ,'��- i ATMA I a Liz, ® s •� s A .0 A al A s AAs 1 :n '1 • ' 11 usu• A 1 ® A A •A LSA 1 aII GII "A I. Short Range Transit Plan Update Prepared for City of San Luis Obispo, California Draft Final Report Prepared by Urbitran Associates, Inc. January 2009 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary....................................................................................................:......:.:..:...1 LSocioeconomic and Land Use Characteristics.......:..::........................................................I Introduction...........................:..........:.......................................................»...»...................».............1 Population—Past,Present, and Future..........................»................................................................3 CurrentPopulation Density..............................................................................................................5 SeniorCitizen Population...:...........:.........................................................»........».............................7 YouthPopulation...................:..:.:.......:..:.........:.........................................»..»....»...........................9 DisabledPopulation.....................:......:..:..:.:........................................................»..................»....10 Income............................................................................w......:..:..:.:..:.............................................11 PopulationBelow the Poverty Level.........::......................:..................................................»...»....12 Zero-Car Households.....................................::..:.:.......:............w..........................»........................13 TransitSuccess Score.....................................................................................:.:..:.:..:..:...................14 Employment........»...............................................................................:.................:.:..:..:::..............16 Commuting................»...................................................................................:....:..................:.:..:.:.21 Zoningand Major Trip Generators...............................................................................................23 FutureGrowth and Development...................................................................................................26 Conclusion............................................................................................................................:..:.......28 2. Service Overview...............................................::..........................::..................................29 Introduction..........................................................................................:.....:..::.................................29 OrganizationalStructure.........................................................................:.........:..:..:.:..............:....:.29 SLOTransit.Service Description.........».........»...».............................................................:.:.........30 Service Details.....................................:.................:.......:.:...............................................................33 FareStructure..........................................................:.:..:.W.......:.:............................................».....36 PassengerAmenities»......................................................................................:...............................37 OtherTransportation Providers..................................................................::................:..:..:.:.::...A7 FinancialInformation..»................................................................................::....:..:............w.........39 CapitalResources....»...».................................................................................................................40 Compositionof Revenue Fleet...........................................................................................:............40 Maintenanceof Vehicles.....................................................................................:.......:....:.:..:.:..:....41 HistoricalTrends...............................................................»......:.......................:.:.:..:............:.........41 3. Initial Public Outreach..........:...:............:.........................................................................43 Introduction... .:...... ... ... :..................................................................»..43 Draft Final Report i Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Drop-In Sessions..........»..._......................................................................................:..:.:..:..............43 StakeholderInterviews...............................................................................:.................:.....:.:.........45 BusOperator Interviews..........................................................................................................::.:...55 Summary.............................................................................................................:.....................:.:...56 4. On-Board Survey Results........................................:...::...:...............................................57 SurveyMethodology................................................._i.:......:..........................................................57 SurveyResults.......................:.........:.........:....w......:................................................... ...................57 S. Peer System Analysis........................................................................................................70 Introduction..........:....................................................................................................:....:..........o.....70 PeerGroup Selection......:...........................................................................................................:...70 PeerGroup Analysis..:....................................................................................................................74 Conclusions...................................:......:....:......................................................................................77 6. Service Evaluation, Issues, and Opportunities..................................................:.........e....78 Introduction._...................................................................................... .: ....:.................................78 PerformanceEvaluation_...........o............o...................................;.....o...................:4.... ................78 WeekdayRoute Diagnostics..................................................................................:..................:......94 WeekdayTime of Day Analysis...................................................................................................102 RouteIssues and Opportunities..:...:............................................................................................103 OverallIssues and Opportunities.........:..:.::.:.:...................................................».......................127 7. Final Route Plan and Implementation..............................................:......:....:........:.......128 PlanningPrecepts..................................................................................................................:.:.....128 RouteModification Proposals-............................0...-00.0...........................o..... .........o...............130 ImplementationSchedule...........................................................».................................................138 RevenueMiles and Hours...........:........:...............:.:..:.:.:..:............................................................140 Vehicle Requirements.........................................................................:...............:..:.:...:.:..:....:......144 LongTerm Issues...........»..................»..................................................................................::.....145 PublicOutreach.........:..................................................................................................................146 RidershipEstimates:..:.:..:.:.:..:..:...................................................................................................147 8. Financial Plan.................................................... ...... ...........;....148 BaselineUnit Costs.............................................................................:.:...:.:..:...............................148 OperatingCost Projections................................................................::.:..:..:.:..:......::....................148 Funding....................................................::.....................:..:.:....:..:..:.........:....................................149 Opportunitiesto Reduce Cost...................................:..:.:.....::..:..:.::..............................................150 9. Final Plan Elements.......................................................................................................151 Draft Final Report i; Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Capital plan. .151 MarketingPlan...................:....:..:.:....................................................:...........................................155 Management Plan:. .155 Draft Final Report iii Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: SLO Transit Service Area Overview...........................................................................:..........l Figure 1-2:Total Population by Block Group..........................................................................................4 Figure 1-3:Total Population by Block.....................................................................................................5 Figure 111:Population Density by Block Group...........................................................................-.............6 Fie 1-5:Population Density by Block.................................................................................................7 Figure 1-6: Senior Population..................................................................................................................8 Figure 1-7:Youth Population.....................................:......:....:................................................................9 Figure 1-8: Disabled Population............................................................................................................ 10 Figure 1-9:Median Household Income.................................................................................................. 11 Figure 1-10:Poverty Status................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 1-11:Zero-Car Households......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 1-11 Transit Success Score Map................................................................................................ 15 Figure 1-13:Labor Force Density based on Home Location................................................................... 16 Figure 1-14`. Density of Jobs......................................................... ... 17 ..................................................... . Figure1-15:Major Employers...............................................................................................................18 Figure 1-16:2006.County Employment by Industry...............................................................................20 Figure 1-17-Percent of Labor Force Use of Public Transportation for Commuting................................22 Fie 1-18:Employee Use of Public Transportation for Commuting based on Employment Location...23 Figure1-19:Zoning........................................................................................................................:......24 Figure 1-20.Major Trip Generators.......................................................................................................25 Figure1-21:Future Plans......................................................................................................................27 Figure 4-1: Affiliation with Cal Poly .....................................................................................................58 Figure 4-2: Annual Household Income by Affiliation with Cal Poly.......................................................58 Figure 4-3: Age Distribution of Survey Respondents.............................................................................59 Figure 4-4: Annual Household Income..................................................................................................60 Figure 4-5: Household Vehicle Ownership............................................................................................61 Faure 4-6: Access Modes to Bus Stop...................................................................................................62 Figure 4-7: Egress Modes from Bus Stop....................:..........................................................................62 Figure 4-8:Frequency of Use................................................................................................................64 Figure4-9:Length of Use......................................................................................................................64 Figure4-10: Prior Mode of Travel...........................................................:.............................................65 Figure4-11: Fare Media........................................................................................................................65 Figure4-12:Trip Purpose......................................................................................................................66 Figure 4-13: Overall Service Rating.......................................................................................................67 Figure 4-14: Service Ratings by Category..............................................................................................67 Figure 6-1: SLO Transit Service Area:Route Spacing Guide.................................................................82 Figure 6-2: SLO Transit Service Coverage.............................................................................................84 Figure 6-3:SLO Transit Sdi ice Congruency.................................... .....................................................85 Figure 6-4:Weekday Passengers per Mile by Route with Peer Average.................................................95 Fie 6-5:Weekday Passengers per Hour by Route with Peer Average.................................................96 Figure 6-6: Weekday Cost per Hour by Route with System Average......................................................98 Figure 6-7:.Weekday Cost per Passenger by Route with Peer Average...................................................99 Figure 6-8:Weekday Farebox Recovery by Route with Peer Average.................................................. 100 Figure 6-9: SLO Transit System: Weekday Ridership by Time of Day................................................. 102 Figure 6-10: Route 1 Weekday Ridership by Time of Day................................................................... 104 Figure 6-11: Route 1 Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day..........................................:.............. 104 Figure 6-12: Route 1 Weekday Bus Stop Activity................................................................................ 105 Figure 6-13: Route 2 Weekday Ridership by Time of Day................................................................... 107 Draft Final Report iv Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 6-14: Route 2 Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day......................................................... 107 Figure 6-15:Route 2 Weekday Bus Stop Activity................................................................................ 108 Figure 6-16:Route 3 Weekday Ridership by Time of Day................................................................... 110 Figure 6-17:Route 3 Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day......................................................... 110 Figure 6-18:Route 3 Weekday Bus Stop Activity...................................:............................................ 111 Figure 6-19:Route 4 Weekday Ridership by Tiine of Day................................................................... 113 Figure,6-20:Route 4 Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day......................................................... 113 Figure 6-21:Route 4 Weekday Bus Stop Activity................................................................................ 114 Figure 6-22:Route 5 Weekday Ridership by Time of Day................................................................... 116 Figure 6-23: Route 5 Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day.................:....................................... 116 Figure 6-24:Route 5 Weekday Bus Stop Activity................................................................................ 117 Figure 6-25:Route 6a Weekday Ridership by Time of Day...........................I..............:....:.................. 119 Figure 6-26: Route 6a Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day........................................................ 119 Figure 6-27: Route 6a Weekday Bus Stop.Activity.................:............................................................ 120 Figure 6-28:Route 6b Weekday Ridership by Time of Day...........:..........:.......................................... 122 Figure 6-29: Route 6b Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day....................................................... 122 Figure 6-30: Route 6b Weekday Bus Stop-Activity.........................:.....................:.......:...................... 123 Figure 6-31:Downtown Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day.................................................. 125 Figure 6-32:.Downtown Trolley Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day........................................ 125 Figure 6-33: Downtown Trolley Weekday Bus Stop Activity.................................................4............. 126 Figure 7-1: SLO Transit Proposed Route Network.:............................................................................. 128 Figure7-2:Proposed Route I .............................................................................................................. 131 Figure7-3:Proposed Route 2 .............................................................................................................. 132 Figure 74:Proposed Route 3 ........ ......... ..................... I........................................................ 134 Figure 7-5:Proposed Routes 4 and 5....................................................................................................136 Figure 7-6:Proposed Route 6............................:..:.:..............:........ ..................................................... 137 Figure 7-7:New Cross-town Route..................................................................................................4... 138 Draft Final Report v Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1:Population Projections 2000-2030...........................................................................................3 Table1-2:Major Employers.................................................................................................................. 19 Table 1-3: Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment Statistics 2000-2006.....................................20 Table 14:County-County Worker Flow................................................................................................21 Table 3-1: Stakeholder Meeting Participants..........................................................................................46 Table 4-1: Automobile Availability.......................................................................................................60 Table 4-2: Comparison of Access and Egress Modes.............................................................................62 Table 4-3:Routes Connected From........................................................................................................63 Table 4-4:Routes Connecting To..........................................................................................................63 Table 4-5:Dominant Passenger Profiles of Students and Non-Students..................................................68 Table 5-1: SLO Transit's Initial Peer Group Statistics (source NTD 2006).............................................72 Table 5-2: SLO Transit's Initial Peer Group Performance Indicators......................................................73 Table 5-3: SLO Transit Peer Group Statistics and Performance Indicators .............................................75 Table 6-1: Proposed Service Standards..................................................................................................79 Table6-2: Route Spacing Guide............................................................................................................81 Table 6-3: SLO Transit Average Operating Speed by Route...................................................................87 Table 6-4: SLO Transit On-Time Performance......................................................................................88 Table 6-5:Cost per Peak Vehicle by Route............................................................................................90 Table 6-6: Stop Locations with 25 or More Boardings...........................................................................92 Table 6-7: 2006 Weekday Route Level Ridership, Operating Data, Cost and Revenue Estimates ...........94 Table 6-8: SLO Transit Weekday Passengers per Mile by Route............................................................95 Table 6-9: SLO Transit Weekday Passengers per Hour by Route...........................................................96 Table 6-10: SLO Transit Cost per Hour by Route..................................................................................97 Table 6-11: SLO Transit Weekday Cost per Passenger by Route............................................................99 Table 6-12: SLO Transit Weekday Farebox Recovery by Route........................................................... 100 Table 6-13: SLO Transit Weekday Route Ranking............................................................................... 101 Table 6-14: Route 1 Weekday Performance Indicators......................................................................... 103 Table 6-15: Route 2 Weekday Performance Indicators......................................................................... 106 Table 6-16: Route 3 Weekday Performance Indicators......................................................................... 109 Table 6-17: Route 4 Weekday Performance Indicators......................................................................... 112 Table 6-18: Route 5 Weekday Performance Indicators......................................................................... 115 Table 6-19: Route 6a Weekday Performance Indicators....................................................................... 118 Table 6-20: Route 6b Weekday Performance Indicators....................................................................... 121 Table 6-21: Downtown Trolley Weekday Performance Indicators........................................................ 124 Table7-1:Fare Proposals.................................................................................................................... 140 Table 7-2: Revenue Miles and Hours................................................................................................... 141 Table 7-3:Revenue Miles—Mondays through Thursdays.................................................................... 141 Table 74:Revenue Miles—Fridays .................................................................................................... 142 Table 7-5:Revenue Hours—Mondays through Thursdays ................................................................... 143 Table 7-6:Revenue Hours-Fridays..................................................................................................... 144 Table 7-7:Ridership Projection........................................................................................................... 147 Table 8-1: Service Plan Assumptions................................................................................................... 148 Table 8-2: Operating Cost Projections................................................................................................. 149 Table 8-3: Expected Funding Levels.................................................................................................... 149 Table 9-1: Bus Stops with Over 25 Passenger Boardings..................................................................... 153 Draft Final Report vi Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Executive Summary The City of San Luis Obispo is centrally located in California between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The City has an estimated population of 42,963 (2006 Census Bureau estimate). San Luis Obispo is also home to the California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), a major source of population, employment, and other overall economic and social impacts. SLO Transit, a program operated out of the Department of Public Works, is the City of San Luis Obispo's transit provider and operates fixed route service throughout the City and trolley service downtown. Other regional and paratransit service providers also offer service to the City. The following map provides an overview of the SLO Transit service area. SLO Transit Service Area Overview SSL doom p0 Shon Range Transit Plan Update Service Area Overview Lem Il\ - �^Rekord \ SLO Rome �1 7 � —3 —a 4 lam erring . �5 —61 —6b Trolley • Tmlkry-Famers Maker � Road Type o Frt y -' �Highxa)'Regianal Raine Menal Collwi.Rays Lsanl Rd M.m Road Dwmmrn 9 _Perks Cay Limier R 00.75 0.5 Mil. —d Socioeconomic and Land Use Characteristics According to 2000 Census information, the population of the City of San Luis Obispo was 44,174. From 1990-2000, San Luis Obispo's population grew by 5%, a rate much lower than the Draft Final Report ES-1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo statewide figure of 14%. The Census Bureau reports that San Luis Obispo's population did not change from 2000 to 2003, but has declined by 3% from 2003 to 2006 (population 42,963). The population in the area is projected to grow significantly through 2030. In the San Luis Obispo area, the rural areas are anticipated to grow ata rate approximately double that of the City proper. The highest probabilities for transit success based on the characteristics of the City's residents are found throughout downtown, particularly around Foothill Boulevard in the northern part of the City and around Laurel Lane in the southern part of the City. Neighborhoods that house Cal Poly students also have great potential for transit success as on-campus housing and parking are both limited. Other potential areas for success include major employment concentrations such as the Cal Poly campus, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and County Offices and other major trip generators such as hospitals, shopping centers and social service agencies. As with most communities nationwide, the permanent resident population is aging as baby boomers reach retirement age. The aging of the population creates new challenges for transit service provision and requires consideration in future planning. San Luis Obispo also has other populations that depend in some way or another on alternative forms of transportation. The City is home to a large disabled population (many of whom are seniors), many youth, and a large percentage of the population living below the poverty level. Service Overview SLO Transit, a City entity with service operation contracted to First Transit., provides fixed-route bus service throughout the City of San Luis Obispo. SLO Transit operates a total of seven regular bus routes on weekdays, six routes on Saturdays, and four routes on Sundays, as well as a Downtown Trolley Thursdays through Sundays. Five routes operate Monday through Friday evenings during the school year. The following table presents revenue and expenses by source for Fiscal Year 2006. Expenses and Revenue(F1'2006) ifs 8teg01'3+ ' `fnM z 4 n Amowtt i 4 .F; d�...e:.b Expense Vehicle Operation $1,650,244 Vehicle Maintenance $275,951 Non-Vehicle Maintenance $6,687 General Administrative $675;107 Total $2,607,989 Revenue Directly Generated $453,002 Local Sources $0 State Sources $1,640,858 Federal Sources $514,128 Total $2,607,988 Source:2006 NTD Reporting Draft Final Report ES-2 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Ohispo SLO Transit's maximum vehicle requirement includes a peak pullout of 10 vehicles during Thursday PM peak, including the Trolley. Not including the Trolley, the maximum vehicle requirement is 9, including Monday through Friday AM Peak, Midday, and PM Peak. Routes 4 and 5 require the most vehicles for service, two at most times except evenings, while all other routes require only one (or 0.5) vehicle to operate. The following table shows revenue miles and hours for each route. Daily Revenue Miles and Hours Route Miles Hours Monday-Thursda Route 1 Broad/Johnson/University Square 113.4 11.27 Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 156.5 14.28 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 177.1 14.50 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 348.7 27.64 Route 5 Cal Pol Lake/Madonna 332.9 25.64 Route 6a Cal Poly/Ifighland 116.4 12.99 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 93.6 13.08 Downtown Troll Thursda only) 51.3 5.50 Total(Mursday Total 1,338.6/1,389.9 119.40/124.90 Fr'da Route 1 Broad/Johnson/UniversitySquare 113.4 11.27 Route 2 South Iii era/Suburban 156.5 14.28 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 177.1 14.50 Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 348.7 27.64 Route 5 Cal Poly/La Lake/Madonna 332.9 25.64 Route 6a Cal Poly/Ifighland 61.6 6.92 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 47.3 6.43 Downtown TroUey 84.8 9.00 Total 1,322.3 115.68 Saturda Route 2 South lE era/Suburban 105.0 10.00 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 110.4 9.55 Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 125.0 9.92 Route 5 Cal Poly/La Lake/Madonna 133.0 9.95 Route 6a Cal Poly/Ilighland 39.6 4.45 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 32.4 4.45 Downtown Trolley 86.8 9.00 Total 631.2 57.32 Sunda Route 2 South lE era/Suburban 105.0 10.00 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 110.4 9.55 Route 4 Mad0nna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 125.0 9.92 Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 133.0 9.95 Downtown Trolley 52.0 5.50 Total 525.4 44.92 Sources:SLO Transit(from Fust Transit) Over the past five years SLO Transit service has declined slightly, while ridership has increased dramatically. The following presents the service and ridership trends for SLO Transit. This Draft Final Report ES-3 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo table shows that revenue hours and miles declined from 2002 to 2004, increased from 2004 to 2005, and declined again from 2005 to 2006. Ridership, on the other hand, declined by 6% from 2002 to 2003, but then increased by 41% from 2003 to 2006. The State Controller's Report shows a decline in ridership in FY 2007. SLO Transit Service Level Trends 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Annual Passengers 721,466 677,355 705,806 938,952 955,287 934,534 Revenue Hours 36,599 36,497 25,733 32,417 32,350 32,653 Revenue Miles 394,674 392,462 361,378 379,000 364,539 367,217 Peak Vehicles 11 11 10 10 11 11 Source:2006 NTD Reporting,State Controller's Report The financial trends show that both the cost and amount of funding that SLO Transit has been receiving over the last 5 years has been growing, except in 2006. In terms of costs, the actual vehicle operational costs have increased substantially, while both vehicle and non-vehicle maintenance costs have been inconsistent. General administrative costs have increased by 149% since 2002, increasing every year except 2004. Funding for the most part has kept up with the cost of running the system. The bulk of funding has come from state sources, followed by federal sources and directly generated revenues such as from the farebox. Local assistance decreased to nothing from 2003 to 2004, but fare revenues increased dramatically. While federal funding increased from 2002 to 2004 and then decreased from 2004 to 2006, state funding and directly generated revenues have grown consistently. Public Outreach The SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan includes an extensive community participation program designed to elicit input from members of the general public, current users of the system, community leaders, key po;.icy decision makers and other transportation stakeholders in San Luis Obispo. The public outreach efforts include such activities as drop-in sessions, stakeholder interviews, and interviews with SLO Transit bus operators. In all, more than 150 people provided input into the study, as follows: Interviews Conducted Interview Type Number Drop-Ins Cal Poly 40 Downtown SLO(AM Peak) 10 Downtown SLO(PM Peak) 50 Total 100 Stakeholder Interviews 45 Bus Operator Interviews 6 Total 151 Draft Final Report ES-4 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Whether talking to riders at the drop-in sessions, or the bus drivers, or the stakeholders, there were a number of common threads that ran through all of the sessions, including: • SLO Transit is, overall, an excellent public transportation system that is well-run and provides a vital service to the community. • SLO Transit service needs to be better coordinated with the services provided by the RTA. • SLO Transit routes which serve the Cal Poly campus are plagued by overcrowding at certain times of the day, which is exacerbated by what are perceived to be buses that are too small for these routes. • SLO Transit should consider additional evening and weekend services, as well as enhanced frequencies of service. • SLO Transit should also consider new service on the southern end of Broad Street in the "airport corridor" service area. • SLO Transit must address the perception that it is a service primarily for Cal Poly students and transit dependents to one that serves everyone in the community. This can be accomplished first by recognizing that there are a number of choice riders who use the bus now, and by better marketing the service to these and other potential riders. On-Board Survey 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. Two major groups of people use the SLO Transit system: students and non-students. The defining characteristics of these two groups are as follows: • Students tend to be younger (19-24), have more cars, have been riding SLO Transit for less than two years, and are going to and from school. They tend to rate the transit service slightly lower than non-students. • Non-students tend to be older (25-59), are not affiliated with Cal Poly, have one or zero cars, make less than $35,000, and have either been riding SLO Transit for less than six months or more than five years. They tend to rate the transit service as excellent or very good in all categories. The seeming contradiction between students' and non-students' household incomes and car ownership is likely tied to supplemental income that students receive from their families, which allows them to own a vehicle. Draft Final Report ES-5 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Survey respondents were requested to suggest ways in which SLO Transit could improve on its service. Out of the pool of 776 respondents, 573 (74%) wrote in a suggestion for improvement. Of those who wrote in a suggestion, 57 (7%) said that service was good as it is. Other responses included: • Crowding — approximately 25% of riders cited crowding as a significant concern, particularly during peak periods on routes serving Cal Poly. Some respondents suggested purchasing larger buses, and others suggested increasing service frequency to help alleviate this problem. • On time performance — the most common response (24%) was that buses often leave early or arrive late for their scheduled stops. • Coordination with the Cal Poly class schedule — Cal Poly classes let out on the hour. Currently, all routes serving Cal Poly leave Mott Gym or the University Union by six minutes after the hour (some earlier), which does not provide adequate time for students to reach the bus stop after class. A few students also mentioned that buses do not arrive soon enough before class. • Span of service — many respondents requested that service start earlier in the morning in order to provide access to jobs and classes that start earlier than the current service schedule. Additionally, while the extended evening hours on Monday through Thursday are popular, many respondents requested that service run later on Fridays and weekends, as well as during the summer. • Friday service—Many respondents, particularly Cal Poly students who would use Routes 6a and 6b, requested that Friday service operate at the same frequency as weekday service. Peer System Analysis SLO Transit was compared to eight peer systems, including the City of Greeley (Greeley, Colorado), Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation (Bloomington, Indiana), St. Cloud Metropolitan Transit Commission (St. Cloud, Minnesota), Missouri State University (Springfield, Missouri), Las Cruces Area Transit (Las Cruces, New Mexico), Charlottesville Transit Service (Charlottesville, Virginia), Blacksburg Transit (Blacksburg, Virginia), and Eau Claire Transit(Eau Claire, Wisconsin). Three types of statistics—service input, service output, and service consumption statistics—were used to generate a series of performance indicators measuring efficiency, effectiveness, and service availability. These indicators were compared between SLO Transit and each of the eight peer systems, and all nine systems were ranked for each indicator. • Financial efficiency measures the cost to produce a unit of service. Draft Final Report ES-6 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo • Service effectiveness measures the amount of service consumed per unit of service provided. • Cost effectiveness links the previous two measures by assessing how well resources are used to produce trips and how well fare revenue covers the cost of those trips. The following chart summarizes SLO Transit's ranking among its peer systems for each metric explored in the peer analysis. Peer and Trend Analysis Summary Category Metric SLO Transit Rank Average Financial Efficiency Cost er Revenue Mile $6.95 9 of 9 Cost per Revenue Hour $76.56 5 of 9 Service Effectiveness Passengers per Revenue Mile 2.4 4 of 9 Passengers per Revenue Hour 29.7 3 of 9 Cost per Passenger $2.71 1 4 of 9 Cost Effectiveness Farebox Recovery Ratio 17.4% 1 4 of 9 Average Fare $0.47 4 of 9 Deficit per Passenger $2.24 4 of 9 Service Evaluation,Issues, and Opportunities The findings in this section take into account the quantitative data as well as the issues and opportunities identified by the customers, stakeholders, and those who commented at the drop-in sessions; and the data from the peer group and trend analyses. The analysis of SLO Transit services shows a number of issues as well as opportunities for service improvements. The list below presents the issues and opportunities for the SLO Transit route network: • There are issues with overcrowding on routes that serve the Cal Poly campus • Running time/On-time performance issues • The frequency and span of service on Friday differing from other weekdays • Frequency and span of service during summer periods versus winter periods • Duplication with SLORTA services • Fare issues between SLORTA and SLO Transit services • Quality and accuracy of public information • Confusing route network with bi-directional loops • Low productivity on certain routes • Difficult turns for certain bus routes on neighborhood streets • Equipment issues with old buses and deployment of buses to meet ridership • Service needed to emerging corridors • The need for an off-street transfer center Draft Final Report ES-7 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Route Recommendations The following map shows the system proposed in the Short Range Transit Plan Update. Proposed System LYPf aShorr4�RRang pTransit y Plan Update Proposed F°°m lvd System o Structure c y J�� o , LM snmh St Rm ♦ s S P [ Rd 7 W - - 5-TanMt'+�'Rwdng n` 4&5 Rudd Rd �b S ._New Oos.tmee(Yem)) Y Tmlky � Tyle)•-Thursday Rmnmy D.. Aro City Limits Buckley i 615 0.5 MRes Route 1 This route would operate between Sierra Vista Hospital and Johnson/Southwood via Santa Rosa Street and Broad Street, operating through downtown. It will operate a terminal loop that goes west on Foothill Boulevard, south on Tassajara Street, east on Ramona Drive, and north on Broad Street back to Foothill Boulevard. It would serve the Downtown Transfer Center and would continue south along Broad Street to Orcutt Road with a terminal loop utilizing Orcutt Road, Johnson Avenue, Southwood Road, and Laurel Lane. The modifications to Route 1 create a bi-directional corridor along Broad Street and, together with the proposed modifications to Route 3, greatly simplify the service patterns in the southeastern portion of the service area. Ideally there will be a timed transfer along Laurel Lane between Routes 1 and 3. One roundtrip on Route 1 will be 9.8 revenue miles long and take approximately one hour. We anticipate one bus providing hourly service along Route 1. In future years an additional bus will be required to provide 30 minute service. Draft Final Report ES-8 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Route 2 The current SLO Transit Route 2 will be greatly modified. SLO Transit Route 2 would be operated from the North Perimeter Drive on the Cal Poly campus to the Downtown Transfer Center along the alignment of the current Route 6b. It would then proceed south to the Amtrak Station and continue to the Greyhound Bus Station. From the Greyhound Bus Station Route 2 will utilize Higuera Street to Los Osos Valley Road. The route will return north on Route 101 to Prado Road and terminate at the Prado Day Center stop. Route 2 would begin its return trip by heading northbound along Higuera Street. The new Route 2 incorporates segments of the existing Routes 2, 4, 5 and 6b and serves to provide a bi-directional service between the center of the Cal Poly campus, downtown San Luis Obispo; and — with respect to intermodal connectivity — the Amtrak Station and the current Greyhound Bus Station. It also serves the Prado Day Center near its southern end. One roundtrip on Route 2 will be 13.2 revenue miles long and take approximately 60 minutes. We anticipate two buses providing service every 30 minutes on Route 2. Route 3 The modified Route 3 would operate from the Downtown Transfer Center and serve the Johnson Street corridor to the Johnson Street/Augusta Street couplet. It would then utilize Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road to Tank Farm Road, from which it would proceed south along Broad Street and utilize the San Luis Obispo Airport as a turn-around location. The northbound route would return via Broad Street to Tank Farm Road and utlize the same streets as the southbound routing. Route 3 would enter downtown San Luis Obispo via the current alignment of northbound Route 1 and would exit downtown via the current alignment of southbound Route 3. Along with the proposed modifications to Route 1, the modifications to Route 3 greatly simplify the SLO Transit service patterns in the southeastern portion of the service area. The emerging employment corridor along Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and the airport is also served. One roundtrip on Route 3 will take approximately one hour, and will travel 10.9 revenue miles. We anticipate one bus providing hourly service along Route 3. In future years an additional bus will be needed to provide 30 minute service. Routes 4 and S The new SLO Transit Routes 4 and 5 will replace the current Routes 4 and 5, operating in a similar manner—a large loop in opposite directions. The new Route 5 will operate in a counter- clockwise direction, while the new Route 4 will operate in a clockwise direction, similar to today's operation. These routes will no longer serve the Amtrak Station, Santa Rosa Street, and South Street, which will instead be served on Route 2. These routes will instead operate on Higuera Street between Downtown and Madonna Road. Additionally, Routes 4 and 5 will no longer utilize Auto Park Way on the lower portions of Los Osos Valley Road to turnaround, they will turnaround utilizing the Home Depot parking lot. Draft Final Report ES-9 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo The modified Routes 4 and 5 are a more "streamlined" version of the current Routes 4 and 5.. They serve downtown more directly and allow the southern end of downtown San Luis Obispo to be served by the modified Route 2. More streets also receive bi-directional service, and the use of"5" and "4" for the route nomenclature is appropriate given that this is essentially the same loop route in opposite directions. The cycle time for both routes will be 60 minutes, which should be possible based on the more direct route alignment. Route 4 will travel 11.2 miles and Route 5 will travel 11.5 miles. We anticipate two buses providing service every 30 minutes on Route 5 and two buses providing service every 30 minutes on Route 4, for a total of four buses on Route 4 and 5. Route 6 The new Route 6 is essentially the renamed Route 6a. The current Route 6a is modified by not serving the Sierra Vista Hospital loop via Santa Rosa, Murray and Casa Streets, which will now be served by Route 1. The full cycle of the Route 6 will travel 3.7 miles and is expected to take 30 minutes, including layover time. We anticipate one bus providing service every 30 minutes along Route 6. There will no longer be routes designated as 6a and 6b, as Route 6 will replace Route 6a, and the modified Route 2 will replace Route 6b.. Downtown Trolley This route continues to operate as it does today,utilizing one vehicle. New Crosstown Route This would be a new route that would be implemented in Year 5 of the plan, depending on funding, to enable a connection between eastern portions of the city, southern portions of the city, and Madonna Plaza without operating through downtown. This route would operate primarily along Tank Farm Road, Broad Street, and Johnson Street to allow cross-town movement. This route would operate with one vehicle,providing service every 60 minutes. The vehicle will travel a total of 17.2 revenue miles, however the 60 minute cycle time is based on operating in relative free-flow conditions and not experiencing the traffic conditions of the Cal Poly campus or Downtown. Other Proposals As part of the planning process for this Short Range Transit Plan Update, several long term strategic issues have been identified that should be considered as part of future planning efforts. These are as follows: • SLORTA Coordination — Coordination with the RTA was a precept used in the draft route recommendations; schedule coordination should be addressed as a near term issue, specifically when the new timetables are designed for Year 1 implementation with a priority setting as to which SLO local routes warrant schedule coordination with RTA the most. This is because both operators provide service within the City of San Luis Obispo. However, SLO Transit provides local circulation within the city and SLORTA provides Draft Final Report ES-10 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo regional connections. As these two operators serve different purposes, a policy that should be immediately pursued is closer cooperation in terms of schedules, fare media, and marketing. This should help increase awareness of region-wide transit and improve the convenience of transfers between the two systems. Coordinating transfers is important; however, it must balance the needs of the schedules for both SLO Transit and SLORTA operations. • New Corridors and Areas — Future service corridors might include the Oceanaire Drive/Laguna Lakes area as well as any other possible "crosstown" corridors. Although the corridor connecting Cuesta College with San Luis Obispo is important; it is a regional corridor more appropriately served by SLORTA. Chorro Street north of downtown is another corridor that in the future may warrant bus service to connect to downtown. As the city grows and develops available land, as well as annexing any new areas, transit services should be considered to improve mobility in these new areas. • Park-and-Ride Lot Locations —The proposed park-and-ride lot at Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. Route 101 would best be served by SLORTA Route 10, which serves the South Higuera Street corridor. A long term park=and-ride location might be Highland Drive at State Route 1, which would be served both by SLORTA and the modified SLO Transit Route 5. Park-and-ride should be implemented at this location if adequate land is available. • Downtown Transfer Center — In the future, any planning efforts for a new off-street transfer center in downtown San Luis Obispo should consider the need to accommodate articulated buses at such a_ facility. In addition, a future facility might also need to accommodate intercity bus services as well as SLORTA services. Summary and Implementation A new route network was developed for SLO Transit based on data collection, input from technical staff and public involvement. This network was developed to address key issues such as ease of comprehension, response to public input/unmet needs, overcrowding, bi-directional service, intermodal connectivity, street geometry issues, extended service coverage, emerging corridors, and fare integration. Below are the highlights of the implementation schedule: Year 1 The first year of service completely overhauls the route network. All of the route modifications described in the route modification proposal section, with the exception of the new crosstown route, would be implemented in the first year. The route frequencies would be the same as described in the route proposals. The span for these routes would be roughly the same as what is operated by the current route network. The impact on revenue hours and miles will be minimal. Draft Final Report ES-11 1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo The implementation of the Year 1 route network will have a fare change associated with it. The base fare would increase by 25% from $1.00 to $1.25. This will have impacts on all other fare types, categories, and media. Along with the fare increases proposed, SLO Transit should work with Cal Poly to increase the amount of revenue collected associated with providing Cal Poly students with unlimited rides as part of the fare change. Year 2 Year 2 leaves the Year 1 route network and fare structure intact. The changes proposed in Year 2 are geared towards improving mobility on the Broad Street corridor. Route I service will be provided on weekends to allow access to Broad Street on all days of the week. Year 3 Year 3 will see a fare change as well as having regular weekday service operate on Fridays. The fare change includes an 8% increase in the base fare from $1.25 to $1.35 with increases to other fare media and categories. Concurrent with this fare change, SLO Transit should work with Cal Poly to increase the amount of revenue collected associated with providing Cal Poly students with unlimited rides. The service changes include modifying the schedule of Route 6 on Fridays in order to provide the same service as the rest of the week. Year 4 Year 4 will add service during the summer periods so that there is a single year round schedule. Also, during peak commuting periods, additional service will be provided on Routes 1 and 3, resulting in 30 minute service. This will add service to Route 6 in the summer time daytime periods, provide evening service on Routes 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as provide additional weekday service on Routes I and 3. Year 5 Year 5 will see the implementation of the new crosstown route as well as additional service on Routes I and 3. A fare adjustment will also occur in Year 5. The new crosstown route will enhance the route network by allowing for east-west movement in the southern parts of San Luis Obispo without the need to go downtown, as well as provide access to the hotels_ on eastern part of Monterey Street. Additional service will be provided on Routes 1 and 3 to allow for 30 minute all day service on these routes. Evening service will be provided on Route 1 to allow for evening access to the Broad Street corridor. A base fare increase of 11%, from$1.35 to $1.50, is proposed in Year 5, with increases to all other fare media as well. Concurrent with this fare change, SLO Transit should work with Cal Poly to increase the amount of revenue collected associated with providing Cal Poly students with unlimited rides. The following presents the operating financial plan for service modifications that are proposed to address issues identified in the SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan Update. The financial plan is based on the final service plan assumptions for revenue hours, revenue miles and peak vehicles. These assumptions are presented in-the following table. Draft Final Report ES-12 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Revenue Miles and Hours Year Revenue Miles Revenue Mile Revenue Hours Revenue Hour Change Change Base Year 389,636 N/A 34,254 N/A Year 1 406,743 4.39% 34,800 1.60% Year 2 417,995 2.77% 35,960 3.33% Year 3 420,260 0.54% 36,266 0.85% Year 4 463,730 10.34% 40,506 11.69% Year 5 1 540,506 16.57% 46,226 14.12% Operating costs increase annually due to the growth in the level of service. Most of this growth occurs in Year 4 and Year 5 when revenue hours are projected to increase by 11.7 and 14.2 percent, respectively. Operating costs increase between 4.1 and 6.6 percent annually during Years 1 through 3. In Years 4 and 5, costs increase more than 15 percent in each year. Over the five year period, operating costs are projected to increase by more than$1.8 million(58 percent) over the base year. The following table presents operating cost projections. Operating Cost Projections Base Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Revenue Hours 34,254 34,800 35,960 36,266 40,506 46,266 Cost per Hour $77.08 $79.54 $82.09 $84.71 $87.41 $90.21 Total Cost $2,640,298 $2,767,992 $2,951,956 $3,072,093 $3,540,629 $4,173,656 Annual Change 4.84% 6.65% 4.07% 15.25% 17.88% Currently, the funding situation at all levels is uncertain based on revenue shortfalls for most funding providers. Most of the funding sources and levels are based on historical funding sources and amounts projected by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). The following table presents expected funding by source. The final line presents the difference between the annual cost and revenue that is projected. Cost differences may be made up by increased local funding, fare changes, or reductions in service. Expected Funding Levels Base Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Annual Cost $2,640,298 $2,767,992 $2,951,956 $3,072,093 $3,540,629 $4,173,656 Federal Fimcling $600,000 $618,000 $636,540 $655,636 $675,305 $695,564 State Fundis STA $52,655 $52,655 $52,655 $53,971 $55,321 $56,704 Local Fundis $1,085,830 $1,070,798 $1,055,315 $1,071,105 $1,087,052 $1,103,154 RTA Contribution $501,068 $516,100 $531,583 $547,531 $563,956 $580,875 Investment&Properties Revenues $4,900 $5,000 $5,100 $5,200 $5,300 $5,400 Other Revenues $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Fares $522,301 $541,533 $561,528 $582,318 $603,937 $626,419 Total Revenue Sources $2,768,754 $2,806,086 $2,844,721 $2,917,761 $2,992,871 $3,070,116 Capital Cost of Contacting ($84,000 ($88,200) ($92,610) ($97,241) ($102,103 $107,208 Total Funding Available $2,684,754 1 $2,717,886 $2,752,111 1 $2,820,520 1 $2,890,768 $2,962,908 Funding Balance $44,456 $50,106 $199,845 1 $251,573 1 $649,861 $1,210,748 Draft Final Report ES-13 i Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Capital Plan The Capital Plan describes the physical items that are needed for the implementation of the Short Range Transit Plan Update. The primary capital item is buses that are used for service. Other elements include Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), bus stops, and bus shelters. This capital plan responds to the needs of the proposed network, and includes the following items: • Revenue Vehicle Fleet — The current SLO Transit fleet includes 15 revenue vehicles. The existing capital plan includes a replacement schedule for existing vehicles, beginning with the purchase of six new 35 and 40 foot buses in 2009, four replacement vehicles in 2010, and three additional replacement vehicles in 2013, thus maintaining the current fleet of 15 vehicles. Peak vehicle requirements in the Short Range Transit Plan are 12 for Years 1 to 3, 14 for Year 4, and 15 for Year 5. In order to maintain a desirable spare ratio of at least 20%, it is recommended that SLO Transit purchase two additional vehicles in Year 4 and one additional vehicle in Year S. Additionally, the Trolley service, which recently received a new vehicle, will need an additional vehicle to serve as a backup. This backup trolley will replace a 1984 trolley vehicle that has reached the end of its useful life. • Bus Stops and Shelters — The proposed route network will alter the location of a number of stops and shelters. Additionally, it is recommended that SLO Transit provide benches at as many stops as possible. Shelters should be provided at all stops with more than 25 boardings per day. Ticket kiosks would be useful at some major stops, including the Downtown Transit Center, Madonna Plaza, Laguna Village, and the Amtrak Station. • Intelligent Transportation Systems — An Automatic Vehicle Locator System (AVL), a new radio system, and a new farebox system are ITS proposal highlights. Marketing Plan Current SLO Transit marketing includes a good system map and schedule that are readily available to the public, as well as route information provided at bus stops. Additionally, Cal Poly students are aware that.they can use their student identification cards for free travel on SLO Transit buses. There are two major initiatives that should be undertaken regarding marketing: • Outreach efforts will need to be undertaken when the.new route network is implemented, including advance notice of changes, brochures, posting of the new route network in the website, and information made public in local news media. • Marketing efforts should be geared toward joint marketing efforts between SLO Transit and SLORTA to increase awareness of regional transit operations. Management Plan SLO Transit's existing management structure is sufficient for current needs. Draft Final Report ES-14 C Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo 1. Socioeconomic and Land Use Characteristics Introduction The City of San Luis Obispo is centrally located in California between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The City has an estimated population of 42,963 (2006 Census Bureau estimate). San Luis Obispo is also home to the California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), a major source of population, employment, and other overall economic and social impacts. This unique case is described in more detail later in this section. SLO Transit, a program operated out of the Department of Public Works, is the City of San Luis Obispo's transit provider and operates fixed route service throughout the City and trolley service downtown. Other regional and paratransit service providers also offer service to the City. Figure 1-1 is an overview map of the SLO Transit service area. Figure 1-1: SLO Transit Service Area Overview loons oaW Short Range Transit Plan Update Service Area Overview "r L&gen Railroad SIA Rout \ �I —2 —3 �C — I Lm Evuv'vig 5 —y, Trolley Troller-Fanners Matto \ Road Type ,'�• 'l Fromq Righwuy/Rct;a.1 Route Artoial --Collector Rase lacoi Road Pri n Road Dorutmm -Porgy City Limits 0 035 0.5 Milo ---------------Bn nNeR1iM Cal Poly is located north of downtown in a core campus area of 155 acres. Cal Poly has nearly 19,000 students (from fall 2006 information), 1,200 faculty members, and 1,800 staff members. Drafi Final Report I Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Most students come from the San Francisco Bay Area (32%) or the Los Angeles Area (18%). Only 8% are from San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Monterey Counties combined. The university has over 100 major buildings but provides on-campus housing for only 5,200 students. Parking for faculty, staff, and students is provided in approximately 6,100 spaces spread around the campus: Thus, with the small number of on-campus housing opportunities and parking spaces, alternate forms of transportation to and from the campus are vital for students, faculty, and staff. This chapter is split into six topics with regard to the City of San Luis Obispo: demographics, socioeconomics, the combination of the two into a potential for transit success scoring system, employment, commuting patterns, zoning, and future growth and development. Past, present and future population statistics are discussed in the demographics section, as are the concentrations of youth, senior, and disabled populations in the region. In the socioeconomics section, income statistics, poverty, and households without vehicles are discussed. In the third section, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics that are generally considered to be correlated to transit are evaluated for the City in order to produce a map of areas of potential transit success. Jobs and major employers are discussed in the employment section and means of transportation to work and place of employment are discussed in the commuting section: In the zoning section, both zoning and the location of major trip generators are described. 'Future growth is discussed in terms of City-designated specific plan areas. This chapter provides an overview of socioeconomic, land use, and commuting characteristics based on data collected from the 2000 United States. Census, the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package, the United States Census Bureau, the State of California Labor Market Information Division, the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, and California Polytechnic State University. Where maps are used to present data in a spatial manner, Census block groups are the unit of analysis. Due to the nature of the datasets, Cal Poly students are not accounted for since most Cal Poly students do not consider San Luis Obispo as their primary address. Draft Final Report 2 c_ Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Population—Past, Present, and Future When looking at the demographics of an area, the current situation as well as the past and projected conditions must be studied. Why changes in transit service were made in the past and how transit needs to change in the future to meet changing demographics and demand can be better understood by looking at the patterns that emerge from such an analysis. The decennial Census provides a `snapshot' of a region's demographics, which is very useful to understanding the current needs of a population, but does not speak to how the region got to that snapshot or what the future is expected to bring. According to Census 2000 information, the population of the City of San Luis Obispo was 44,174. From 1990-2000, San Luis Obispo's population grew by 5%, a rate much lower than the statewide figure of 14%. The Census Bureau reports that San Luis Obispo's population did not change from 2000 to 2003, but has declined by 3% from 2003 to 2006 (population 42,963). The population in the area is projected to grow significantly through 2030. Table 1-1 describes growth during this period for the City of San Luis Obispo, rural areas of San Luis Obispo, and the county overall. In the San Luis Obispo area, the rural areas are anticipated to grow at a rate approximately double that of the City proper. Table 1-1:Population Projections 2000-2030 Geographic 2000 2005 2010 2015 Change 2020 2025 2030 Change Change Area 2000- 2015- 2000- 2015 1 2030 2030 City of San 42,188 42,657 44,833 47,120 11.7% 1 49,523 52,050 54,705 16.1% 29.7% Luis Obispo Rural San Luis 3,425 3,628 3,908 4,210 22.9% 4,536 4,886 5,264 25.0% 53.7% O bispo Luis 245,860 260,727 279,404 299,257 21.7% 319,510 341,375 365,016 22.0% 48.5% o County Source ofdata:San Luis Obispo County,June 2005. •Includes only population in households;group quarters are excluded Figures 1-2 and 1-3 depict the distribution of total population by Census block group and Census block for 2000. Total numbers of population are greatest outside of downtown. However, total population figures do not take into account the size of measurement unit (block or block group), which are larger as one moves farther outside of downtown. Total figures are useful in gaining insight into how many people actually live in a certain area, but population density, discussed next, is a better representation of population concentrations. Draft Final Report 3 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 1-2:Total Population by Block Group ssm MY-of _ l Short Range Transit ' Plan Update Total _ Population --- --_ c�eRa i � - -rt dhwd Gy Limin i-, Seam i Road Type ®Faeway Arterial -Conwt Rowe Lmal Road -� Rivnle Rued f ••i , J Wager i Pah Pe w 159-500 501-1.000 1.001-1.500 -1301-2000 /- M 2.001. t� 0 025 0.5 Milo Draft Final Report 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 1-3:Total Population by Block Short Range Transit Plan Update f 1 I i - Total Population - -- by Block Le2 I j I i I end I i r —— Rv4ma \ L_J City Lochs Read Type f ghw8Y/Repnml Ra Arterial \ -- - Colleaoe Room T 9 I K'^• 1 Local Road _ \ 1 private Rend \ ' s Pack Persons 1-15 } L{� -y„n vt Q 36-50 ( � _j \ -51-10p \ i -101l_J R0 0]S 0.5 Md. PP . Current Population Density Population density is another important demographic measure because of its inherent ability to show concentrations of people across a landscape. Densities are very useful for their ability to show concentrations of people but can be misleading due to the composition of the landscape. People do not live in heavily forested areas, in wetlands or in lakes, but the area that is comprised of these types of land cover is not excluded when calculating the land area of the region. The figures presented here are general density figures because they use total land area per political designation, not only habitable land. Figures 1-4 and 1-5 show population density by block group and by block for Census 2000. The City of San Luis Obispo comprises approximately 11 square miles. From Census 2000 figures, the City population density was 4,145 persons per square mile. In 2006, the Census estimates the population density was 3,906 persons per square mile. Population is concentrated in pockets within the City of San Luis Obispo, with the largest concentrations downtown, along Foothill Boulevard, and south of Laurel Lane. Overall, concentrations are greatest within the city limits along Santa Rosa Street and the railroad tracks. As can be seen more clearly when looking at Draft Final Report 5 i Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 1-5, there are also population concentrations west of downtown along Los Osos Valley Road. Figure 14:Population Density by Block Group ClLyof , sanUbsoetspo I Short Range Transit Plan Update I I I Population Density ! ------W - `1 r' I I I I � !Rd t- -�—•Raitmd \ City Limns Smeam 9nad Type � —� —Hisk y/Regimal Rout \ —Arte.] > J - - - Local Rmd t��+J•• y''�vy �' n ___ � _•r/ Priwt Road Nttr ( Park / \\ Pen pu Square Mlle 5-500 .` 501-3,000 / I t ® 3.001-6.01M Z ( / j I/ \y - y Z -6.001-9.000 r _9.001+ 9 025 o.s Mie _-R 1--1—i Draft Final Report 6 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 1-5:Population Density by Block smOf loelspo Short Range Transit Plan Update i I I i ■ Population Density > �r may✓ by Block f y I I I I taeend �•Railroad \ L_- City Limilr I (- Stream Road Type \ -Him/R<giaaal Rowc \/ _Xt —,gym • C.11 m Rowe Laol Road -- � J Rive1<Roel MW f pa'k -- ren6a,arsgaamMe \ . m 3,001-6,0W %� % j % -6.001-9.= I J -9.001- t 0 0.25 0.6 Mao 1--'«--I U �. For the younger and older segments of the population, age directly impacts mobility, and thus impacts transit usage. Identifying where these populations are concentrated can indicate areas of potential transit demand. 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 youth turn 16, limited incomes often restrict their ability to own and maintain a vehicle. Youth and senior populations are discussed in the following sections. Senior Citizen Population Senior citizens tend to locate in the more urban areas, where access to healthcare facilities and activities are readily available. According to Census 2000, of 44,174 people in the City of San Luis Obispo, 5,330 (12.1%) were 65 years or older. Figure 1-6 is a map of senior citizen density by Census block group for the City of San Luis Obispo. The distribution of seniors generally follows the distribution of the overall population. However, seniors are more heavily concentrated in pockets throughout the city including the area around Laurel Lane, along Foothill Boulevard, and north of Higuera Street. On the other hand, where Draft Final Report 7 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo there is a concentrated overall population in the area north of downtown along Highland Drive there are few seniors. Figure 1-6:Senior Population SmIwsompo J--- Short Range Transit Plan Update Senior �_i Population � -��— - ;,0) Density (Age 65&Up) rl LeeenQ e Cay Limits �\ I I \ Road Type Hiahway/Reponal Roorc v - t —uncial \•: -` �a I^ - - Ll Callmc Rome T - a LaN Road _ 1, •`fie.. \ '.. Pnwte Road % NiI - z 'Park Sealm per Square Mlle —_� 0-100 101-230 �\ % �• �a'mtkia ®251 _501-750 •; j 5 i _TSI• i I 0 0.25 0.5 Mila I�� Iwai Draft Final Report 8 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Youth Population A youth, for this discussion, is considered to be any person under the age of 18 that lives in San Luis Obispo full time. This may not include Cal Poly students. Figure 1-7 is a spatial view of the youth population in San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo is home to 6,263 people under 18 — 14% of the population. Youth are also distributed throughout the City in a similar pattern to the overall population. The largest concentrations are found in pockets north of Foothill Boulevard, around South Street, south of Laurel Road and around the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road. From field observations, Cal Poly students are scattered throughout the city with concentrations in the neighborhoods along Foothill Boulevard, between the campus and downtown along California Boulevard, Mill Street, and Grand Avenue, near the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center,portions of Los Osos Valley Road, and between downtown and the railroad station. Figure 1-7:Youth Population smulmosispo Short Range Transit Plan Update i Youth L Population Density (Under Age 18) J I ; I Leeend j C Rahoad 4 L-J City Lim mLA ®Freeway —Highway/Re*i I Raul Collura Rams � Lauf Rand - P,i a Road Parr YoatEs per Square Me D-100 / f 101-M \ 1 Ln f I ® 251-500 - \� sol-1.000 LFJ -1.001. � I 0 0.25 0.5 Mil. I h Uu Draft Final Report 9 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Disabled Population Disabled persons comprise another segment of the population with unique transportation needs and patterns. Whether commuting to work, going to medical appointments, or accessing social services, disabled persons have many transportation needs. Also, as a whole, fewer disabled persons possess drivers' licenses than the general population. In San Luis Obispo, 6.6% of the population aged 5 to 20 has disabilities. For the work-aged population (aged 21 to 64), 12.8% have disabilities. Also for the work-aged population, 55.7% of people with disabilities are employed, compared to 72.1% of people without disabilities. For seniors age 65 and over, 39% have disabilities. Figure 1-8 describes the distribution of the disabled population in San Luis Obispo. Unlike the overall population, the largest percentages of disabled persons are found outside of downtown. Figure 1-8:Disabled Population ScrLyI/llSOt;ISpO Short Range Transit Plan Update j Percentage _ Disabled Persons out of Total Population _ Over 5 Years of Age ert Raik d l City Limits I � SY Road Type �N'BM"0Y�°Biaul Raine C _•�1- - - - —Cafl c Rotae Prism Ro°E v� �I t N Pere t ®12.1%-15% _15.1%-20% - -10.1%. ,- -- 0 025 0.5 Miles 1—� The following sections look at socioeconomic characteristics such as income and poverty. Employment and commuting statistics follow. Draft Final Report 10 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Income Income determines (in part) the type of transportation that people are able to use to get to work. People with lower incomes are more likely to be in need of public transportation options than people with higher incomes who can afford private transportation. Both household income and individual income are discussed in this section. Median household income describes the average income of households within the study area. In San Luis Obispo, the Census 2000 median household income was $31,926. Median household income by block group for Census 2000 is mapped in Figure 1-9. The lowest incomes are found throughout downtown and north of downtown. Figure 1-9: Median Household Income cityof SSMWISOBW 1 _ Short Range 7Yansit I Plan Update i Median Household > Income rJ IL,pend C �—^Reiland SO Road Type Highwry.Regiaul RwR Artend w - —� -- Cdlwo Rase Loral Rood -.-- Pri.v4 Revd •_ PWk Mema0 Household Income -$5.677.00-7710.000.00 -S2D.OX01.530,000.00 ®330,000.01-SQA00.00 / $40,000.01-$60.000.00 560.000.01+ I � i 0 0.25 0.5 Miles / ---------------Bu I� 1 Draft Final Report 11 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Population Below the Poverty Level Poverty is defined as an income level for individuals and families below which people are considered to be living in poverty. In 2000, 11,407 people were living below the poverty level— 27% of the population. From a different view, 555 families were living below the poverty in 2000 — 7.1% of all families. Figure 1-10 looks at the percentage of the population living below the poverty level by Census 2000 block group. The highest percentages of people living in poverty are found throughout downtown and north of downtown. Figure 1-10: Poverty Status mnOf ioetspo i ------ Short Range Transit Plan Update Percentage of — ; Population Living Below Poverty Level I Ribem Mend c L�City Limils ! In su 1 \ \ Rndlype i Highwny/Itegiaul Rau¢ — Arterial _—Cdlamr Reece Lacal Rood Private Rawl Phtu - Padt 10.1%-NISI _- �20.1%-30SE -00.1%-40% M,a.1x, I ` �— �� 0 0.25 QS Milo � --------------g I I f Natural and socioeconomic characteristics, such as age and income, are central in determining the location and level of service for bus routes, but other material and behavior characteristics, such as employment and commutation characteristics, are also essential. The next sections deal with the material and behavior characteristics of the people living in the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the cumulative transit success score. Draft Final Report 12 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Zero-Car Households Numbers of cars per household is an important statistic to analyze because it describes transit dependence and in turn, transit demand in the region. Zero-car households are considered to be entirely dependent upon alternate transportation sources. In San Luis Obispo in 2000, 1,394 households had no vehicles available— 7.5% of total households. Figure 1-11 provides a map of zero-car households as a percentage of total households by Census 2000 block group. Zero-car households are concentrated in pockets downtown and west of downtown. Figure 1-11:Zero-Car Households city san k�isowWo Short Range Transit ; I Plan Update L L Percentage of --- Households > without Vehicles r i i i Legend Rmhmd P g i L--- Ciry Limns $0® i Road type Highway/Regional Rou \ —Arterials coll.w Roate P om Rood f) y -r water Por¢ Pneent I �_ LJ f �a.lx-lox r 5 0 ou oshwm Draft Final Report 13 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Transit Success Score The `transit score' map is created in order to spatially analyze several transit-oriented demographic and socioeconomic characteristics at the same time (the characteristics discussed individually in this chapter so far). The transit score is a relative measure of how successful a fixed route transit system is expected to be in a particular region. Used in conjunction with a congruency analysis of major transit generators, the transit score can be used to evaluate existing service as well as to identify areas of potential demand. Major employers and other trip generators are discussed in the following sections. Demographic and socioeconomic information is collected from the U.S. Census Bureau for a region divided into smaller geographic units such as tracts, block groups, or blocks. Block groups were used for this analysis. Transit-oriented variables used for the analysis include: -Population density -Density of the population under the age of 18 -Density of the population over the age of 65 -Percentage of the population with disabilities -Median household income Percentage of the population living below the poverty level -Percentage of zero-car households Each of these variables has a strong correlation with transit success. Transit is most often successful in areasof high population density and in areas with high youth and senior populations. Transit is also traditionally successful in areas with low income,high percentages of people living below the poverty level, and high percentages of households without vehicles available. For a given region, the values for each of these variables are organized by geographic unit. For each variable, the values are arranged into categories of values using the quantile classification method of GIS analysis. For this analysis, all variables are divided into five classes. All of the values in each category (class) are then given a `score' between 1 and 5, where 1 is low expectation of success and 5 is high expectation of success. Then, all of the scores are added up for each variable inside a geographic unit to give a total transit score. Seven variables are evaluated, so a score close to 35 means that a geographic unit has a high expectation for transit success; a score close to 7 means that there is low expectation for transit success. Transit scores are then mapped by geographic unit and quantile classification to show where demographic and socioeconomic variables lend themselves to potential transit success. Figure 1-12 maps the probability of transit success for the City of San Luis Obispo. The highest probabilities for transit success based on the characteristics of the City's residents are found throughout downtown, particularly around Foothill Boulevard in the northern part of the City and around Laurel Lane in the southern part of the City. Neighborhoods that house Cal Poly students also have great potential for transit success as on-campus housing and parking are both limited. Concentrations of student housing were described in the Youth section. As noted, other potential areas for success include major employment concentrations such as the Cal Poly campus, Pacific Draft Final Report _ 14 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Gas and Electric Company, and County Offices and other major trip generators such as hospitals, shopping centers and social service agencies. These are discussed in the following sections. Figure 1-12:Transit Success Score Map Cf SSmtulDSO81spo i --- Short Range Transit Plan Update TIYansit -- -- Success Score —I r' Legend �� { L�City Limis S1rcam �, ,,((/ Road Type \ /,% � —Highway/Regi=l RouW —Collura Rage ,`;�i... t✓,-_� i Local Road Private Road Wam t part Tsm)t$Yaws$core 0-15(LoW) � –���- 16-70 \� / \I Li Vr� 7 j L / 21-25 J i -26-30 T �1 r _31-3500cr) _— � — I 0 0.15 0.5 Milo �;J� Its Draft Final Report 15 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Employment Employment is a key factor in transportation and transit discussions because the work trip is the most frequent and most important trip taken by most people by transit. In the City of San Luis Obispo, 23,869 people were employed at the time of Census 2000. San Luis Obispo is home to many major sources of employment including City and County government offices, Cal Poly, and private employers such as the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. First, the resident labor force density is shown in Figure 1-13. The distribution of resident workers in San Luis Obispo generally follows the same distribution as the overall population; workers are concentrated near downtown and in pockets throughout the City. Figure 1-13:Labor Force Density based on Home Location CWY.Of i san �nsae�spo )—__-- Short Range Transit Plan Update Resident ---- Labor Force >_ Density —� 1 1 I I Lemen J City Limits St. Road'tyPe Highway/Rcgionol Roue � -�� '— I --Colhsta Rave -+ Locnl flood ,� t I- Ri�Rwd I - —J Wm pwi Workm per Square Dile �� %'•` " J f-- 1-250 / \ i . ✓ 251.1,000 -1.001-2,500 M 2.501-5.0W �7 M 5.001 i C I • j 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 1�1 U Draft Final Report 16 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Second, Figure 1-14 is a map of total worker density by place of employment using data from the Census 2000 Transportation Planning Package. This is a depiction of where jobs are located throughout San Luis Obispo. Jobs are heavily concentrated downtown, creating a swath of high job density diagonally from northwest to southeast across the City. The area of dense jobs located north of downtown is the Cal Poly campus — with nearly 2,500 employees, Cal Poly is the second largest employer in the SLO Transit service area. Figure 1-14:Density of Jobs saril4o�spo Short Range Transit I Plan Update I p� I I Density _- of Jobs i Lye � I en �.Rnbmd �f City Limib �\ sum \ ,\ F Road 75'pe ®Fm:any r —Fbghway,%egiooal Raote —Callonor Rawe Lacs]Road R) L. 14ivate Road Alauff Jobe per Sgoam Me 7.100 —_- 101-500 \\ /' LEI ✓i _ ®501-2.500 M 2.501-5,000 it M 5.001. 0 013 as MRes • ----e Further, it can be seen where there are jobs in San Luis Obispo by plotting the locations of large employers. For this study, large employers are those with 50 or more full-time employees. Figure 1-15 shows the locations of the largest employers in San Luis Obispo. The largest employers are generally located downtown and along major roadways throughout the City. Draft Final Report 17 c Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 1-15:Major Employers SdI11�SOB�LtipO � - Short Range Transit Plan Update Cv o h! are Major Employers .r Lmend Stv^?w 1 a,Rap�Sarorhy Full-dine Employees negbnpl - ly Cospa n • 50-75 Medina 0 76-100 0 101-150 L1Jaex, eoumy • 151-200 Cip•o San Lu6'bbispo - �. .t e o/tlre n Luh Coastal • 201- Uny7edSchano3n RAW ��rrl!r / rench�Nnaplm! =dM enter fq- Medica!•en7n SLO Route 1 s, -z �a 3 - Madonna n • . A Ban" =h Cabrftla Can Center 4 4 Lau Evening \� { Y R9epurk � 0 \C kv s mpan➢ Services —g6 T.HeyS /I S i om Rbfle<e North Amerka Tdley-F=.Mmlut enlydC ! City Limits 110me Depu via Tribune Oovnmwn � ! wom Per/armanee ®Patk. Appard Carp SAES Pare Gas,lee Ve So,/tnm�nu 2 -Major Employers P Gas and Bervie San�Luis 7bupas o n Y ReglannAkpon 0 0.75 0.5 Mil- i In general, the depiction of jobs as workers by place of employment matches the distribution of major employers in the City. A closer look at the largest employers and the City's employees is now presented. Table 1-2 lists out the largest employers in San Luis Obispo by the number of employees. Four employers have 1,000 or more employees: SLO County Drug & Alcohol Services, Cal Poly, SLO County Administration, and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Other large employers include the San Luis Coastal Unified School District and the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center. Draft Final Report 18 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 1-2:Major Employers Company Full-Time Full-Time p y Employees' Company Employees SLO County Drug/Alcohol Services 2,721 SESLOC Federal Credit Union 88 Cal Poly 2,450 Assessor's Office,San Luis Obispo C 85 SLO County Administrative Office 2,317 Wings West Aviation Services, Inc. 82 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1,500 OneMain com, an Earthlink Company 75 San Luis Coastal Unified School Dist 670 Performance Technologies 75 Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center 449 San Luis Sourdough 75 Cal Poly Corporation 445 Embassy Suites 73 Lifeguard 360 KSBY-TV/NBC 6 73 City of San Luis Obispo 328 Home Depot,The 70 Madonna Inn 269 WS Packaging Group, Inc. 69 French Hospital Medical Center 237 HSM Electronic Protection,Inc./For 64 GST 200 Morris&Garritano Insurance 62 Ziatech 195 AMK Foodservice Co. 60 Strasbaugh 185 Cal Poly Orfalea College of Business 60 Veritas Software,Inc. 180 Charter Communications 58 Tribune,The 168 Newport Corporation 56 San Luis Obispo Coun Office of Edu 150 Goodwill Industries-Santa Cruz/Mon 55 American Institute of Architects Cen 140 SLO County Parks 55 Economic Opportunity Commission of S 135 Work Training Programs,Inc. 55 SAES Pure Gas,Inc. 135 TrueLink,Inc. 53 Sears Roebuck&Company 133 Achievement House, Inc. 50 Moore Wallace North America 120 Apple Farm Inn 50 Performance Apparel Corp. 120 Best Buy Enterprises 50 Sigma Kappa Sorority 120 Parable Group,The 50 Costco Wholesale 105 Premier Offset Printing 50 Cabrillo Care Center 102 Promega Biosciences,Inc. 50 Central Coast Pathology 100 San Luis Garbage Company 50 Family Care Network,Inc. 95 Xing Technology Co oration/D 50 Spice Hunter,Inc.,The 90 Source:SLO Chamber of Commerce, Cal Poly In San Luis Obispo, workers perform a variety of jobs. According to Census 2000, most residents (39%) were engaged in management and professional occupations. Many were involved in sales and office occupations (29%) or service occupations (20%). Figure 1-16 shows industry of employment for people employed within San Luis Obispo County for 2006. The largest percentage of people in the County work for the government. Other popular industries include trade, transportation, and utilities; leisure and hospitality; education, including Cal Poly and the San Luis Coastal Unified School District; and health services. 1 Some employees may be stationed in other locations within the county Draft Final Report 19 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 1-16: 2006 County Employment by Industry San Luis Obispo County Employment by Industry 2006 Annual Average A,oriculture Information Nauu'A Rosourres, mininG, 1.5"a Other Services 4.0 Construction %1.111ufacturin- Ie•isurc \ flcxpii,ilit\ 13,9% Trade, Transhonation & 6duc.uional & I iealth lhilitcs Services 10.01"o I financial;\<ticiti<s 4.0`"0Go�mnunent f rofessional & Busin(-ss Somites 20 7 t3.8"h Source:State of California Labor Market Information Division Table 1-3 shows how the resident labor force and the City's employment changed from 2000 to 2006. The resident labor force was reduced by 2,300 persons from 2000 to 2006. Similarly, the number of jobs (employment) increased by 2,200 over the same period. Unemployment is also an important characteristic to transit services. People who are compensated for being unemployed by the federal government have to make an active attempt to find employment. In order to go on job interviews and to the unemployment office on very low incomes, the unemployed often have to rely on public transportation. Table 1-3 also shows how the City's unemployment rate changed from 2000 to 2006. Unemployment was at its lowest (4.4%) over the seven-year period in 2001 and 2006, and reached a high of 5.2% during the years in between. Table 1-3:Labor Force,Employment and Unemployment Statistics 2000-2006 Year Labor Force Employment Unemployment Unemployment Rate 2006 26,900 25,700 1,200 4.4 2005 26,800 25,500 1,300 4.7 2004 26,200 24,900 1,300 5.1 2003 25,900 24,600 1,300 5.2 2002 25,900 24,600 1,300 5.2 2001 25,300 24,200 1,100 4.4 2000 24,600 23,500 1,100 4.5 Source:State of California Labor Market Information Division Draft Final Report 20 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Commuting Census 2000 means of transportation statistics describe how people in the City of San Luis Obispo get to and from work. The majority of people who live in the City of San Luis Obispo also work in the City (59% from Census 2000). The mean travel time to work within the City of San Luis Obispo is only 15.4 minutes. Table 1-4 describes the worker flow pattern between San Luis Obispo County and surrounding California counties. Most residents of San Luis Obispo County work in San Luis Obispo County. Outside of San Luis Obispo County, the largest origin and destination county for both work trips and residences is Santa Barbara County. Another relatively common residence and employment destination is Monterey County. Los Angeles County is also a popular work destination for San Luis Obispo County residents. Table 14:County-County Worker Flow County of Residence County of Employment Number of Workers San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo County 96,754 San Luis Obispo County Santa Barbara County 7,480 Santa Barbara County San Luis Obispo County 5,045 San Luis Obispo County Monterey County 797 San Luis Obispo County Los Angeles County 726 Monterey County San Luis Obispo County 540 Source: US Census Bureau County-County Worker Flow Files, 2000 Draft Final Report 21 C Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Some residents of San Luis Obispo use public transportation for commuting (3%), but most drive alone (69%), carpool (10%), or walk (8%). Figure 1-17 is a map of the percentage of workers who use public transportation as their means of transportation to work by Census 2000 block group. The residents who use public transportation for commuting generally live in central San Luis Obispo, and their concentrations are similar to those of zero-car households. Many Cal Poly students also use SLO Transit to commute. Figure 1-17:Percent of Labor Force Use of Public Transportation for Commuting CILY.Of sanwsastspo j J_—__-- Short Range Transit Plan Update l e Percentage of - Labor Force using Public = Transportation i I I i Limen ---Reihmd cry Limits I t^ S� i I � Road hpe `—? Fme y _ ✓" _ `J t aaaaaa High`AY/R4=1 Raate — Local Road Private Rd Waff Pk percent -_ as �� - _ --�•—�--, 0.1%.rs •� �� `i 4 '�1 `' i ®2.I%.3% r-- `\ i t 0 0-25 0.5 Mil. — —g Draft Final Report 22 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 1-18 shows the distribution of employees who use public transportation based on their job locations. Employees who work east, west, and south of downtown have the largest percentages that use public transportation for commuting. Many members of the Cal Poly community also use public transportation to commute to and from the Cal Poly campus. Figure 1-18:Employee Use of Public Transportation for Commuting based on Employment Location santdsosW ^)--- Short Range Transit Plan Update I Percentage of - Employees using Public Transportation _-- I L_J City Limits I � 51me � Rud Type i�• ` (— �. I —Hfghway/RegiaWl Roucc < - I, n-=:•�, _��`1 M mal > n ---Collenm Roble Incl Road Primp Rand vim i Pak Peaent ^` •• l�1.1%-2% -2.1%-3% 0 0.25 os MR. Zoning and Major Trip Generators Zoning is used to dictate where and how certain functions are performed throughout the City of San Luis Obispo. Zoning categories include various levels of residential densities, different types of commercial activity, manufacturing, public facilities and conservation/open space. Major trip generators are locations frequented by a significant number of people, traveling by all modes, within the study area. Common transit generators include shopping centers, industrial parks, major employers, schools, public housing, and hospitals. These generators must be considered when evaluating transit service for a region. This section identifies and maps major trip generators in San Luis Obispo. Major employers were also mapped and discussed in a previous section- Draft Final Report 23 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 1-19 provides a map of zoning in the City of San Luis Obispo. Most of the City of San Luis Obispo is zoned for residences, conservation, and open space. The highest density residential areas are found downtown, along Foothill Blvd in the north, and near South Street, Laurel Lane, and Orcutt Road in the south. Conserved lands and open space are dispersed in large tracts throughout the City. Manufacturing is generally found in pockets in the southern section of the City. Commercial activities are located downtown and along U.S. 101. Offices are generally located downtown and business parks are located in the southern section of the City. Figure 1-19:Zoning cianUSSOBAspo Short Range Transit ^ Plan Update Zoning �. Raib..d Cary Li- -i-Zoning Degipadon �/ f -Buanm Pah / . C®mwiry Commenvl � ��_ Dow %Cammenaal _Ndehborhood Com .J Reil Cemuncml r i Smite Cmmuemial { � _Tourig C...-W CamenmiuNOpen Space -M.nuRcturing Q mr. Pubic Faci6ry Lc Demily Raidemi.l _ C Medium Omvry Rerideo[ial Medium-Hien Dvuiry Reudvnial 7 C High Demiry Poidn WI J r�Senme © o 0.25 os orae. ---� I l I Figure 1-20 provides a map of major trip generators in the City of San Luis Obispo. Major generators are spread around throughout the City. Taking a broad view of the distribution of trip generators and the SLO Transit bus routes, it seems that the routes serve most of the major generators. It should also be noted that transit service in many corridors is supplemented by Regional Transit Authority(RTA) buses. Draft Final Report 24 C Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 1-20:Major Trip Generators 8Cityat111�L8a81S�70 . Short Range Transit Plan Update Major Trip Generators � v ® -,,.�„� ® Sierra Yfva al „•.IW-7$ • So.)3 •isf-xm h f� nferM f n lied Frrnc ical •R SLO was is.mss . Mdda`nna arquef Tg1mMUMI �CUY Lm..Lime Lf�\JI/ doCMer- �-� - ial a ..f /G ndF� Nae epo .. Sx�M corms Th -Mm emvima. i � wM�F muMmc . aomemYmArcJ PnpenK. sF.a Pae;ffcG dElectric 0 OX OS Milo -----------% Draft Final Report 25 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Future Growth and Development In looking into the future of transit service in San Luis Obispo, it is important to understand where development will take place in order to plan for service provision to new areas. Figure 1- 21 describes where the City envisions change via their `Specific Plan Areas.' Plans have been adopted for the Airport and Margarita plan areas. The Orcutt area plan is currently under development. Other specific plan areas that have been completed include the Higuera Commerce Park, South Street, Edna-Islay, South Broad Street, and Mid-Higuera. The two adopted plans are summarized below. The Margarita Specific Plan has been oriented as a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The area also has restrictions due to its proximity to the airport; so the planned development includes a coordinated land use and transportation strategy. The area is located within the City's urban reserve boundary, between areas that are already urbanized or are undergoing urbanization. The plan contains primarily `infill' development in the form of higher-density, affordable housing for seniors and others (868 dwellings of various types targeted to different demographics) in the format of TOD. Other TOD plans for the area include permanent open space protection (225 acres total encompassing open space and parks), supporting services for the residential area, and a business park. The Airport Area Specific Plan includes development in the 1;500 acre unincorporated area around.the airport. The plan area is located within the City's urban reserve boundary. Currently the area is home to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and other industrial, light industrial, and service uses. Approximately 75% of the parcels within the study area have some sort of development on them, but most are only partially developed. The area is also home to natural features such as tributaries to the Acacia Creek (which flood), and relatively level topography. Nearly four hundred acres in the area make up the former Chevron (petroleum tank farm)property. The plan is guided by three main concepts: re-use and re-generation, value enhancement, and smart and sustainable growth. Further information on the three main concepts guiding the plan follows. The former tank farm site will be partially developed with a business park with the majority of acreage preserved as an ecological preserve that includes enhanced natural habitat and visual and recreational open space. Vacant industrial lands will be improved and older industrial sites will be renovated or redeveloped. Value will be added to the area through annexation and the extension of City services and infrastructure, including sewer and water services and streets. Other improvements will also be made to the trail system and transit service to make the area more desirable for employers. Overall, the plan for the area is striving to create smart and sustainable patterns of growth that enhance the community economically, aesthetically, and environmentally. Draft Final Report 26 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 1-21:Future Plans GLY.OSO8ISp0 r-._._._._._._._. ... .... ._. _._._._._. .............................................. ..... i Short Range Transit �\ Plan Update \\ Future Plans i -------------------------- i i i i i i Q��ed 1 ou.so..Rm-i�Am 1 , _. tQwra�aew�¢['svfst�wxr vse 1 �!•'".. \` . M4olls0 Sm BueuSea Bma 1 �—Sm RvrMmnp 6pft fluA n AgnT Am 1 m wvpm m 1 PoCAm 1 1 1 0 015 os nw® Draft Final Report 27 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Conclusion The City of San Luis Obispo is a vibrant community located right in the center of California's central coast. It has been growing in recent years and will continue to grow into the future. San Luis Obispo is also home to Cal Poly, a major attraction for employment, youth, recreation, and entertainment. Thus, as Cal Poly grows and changes, so does San Luis Obispo. As with most communities nationwide, the permanent resident population is aging as baby boomers reach retirement age. The aging of the population creates new challenges for transit service provision and requires consideration in future planning. San Luis Obispo also has other populations that depend in some way or another on alternative forms of transportation. The City is home to a large disabled population (many of whom are seniors), many youth, and a large percentage of the population living below the poverty level. Most people who live in San Luis Obispo also work there. However, strong connections also exist with Santa Barbara and Monterey Counties. Most people drive alone to work, but many also carpool, walk, or use public transportation. Employment in the area has been increasing in recent years and jobs are generally located in the downtown area or along major roadways. The future is expected to bring the addition of new land into the City through annexation used for residential, recreational, preservation, and commercial/industrial purposes in order to boost the community's economic and demographic vitality and attractiveness. Draft Final Report 28 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo 2. Service Overview Introduction A thorough review of a transit system's existing conditions serves as the foundation for eventual operating recommendations in a Short Range Transit Plan. This chapter details the current operations at San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit), financial and operating data and trends, capital assets, and staffing and organization. SLO Transit, a City entity with service operation contracted to First Transit, provides fixed-route bus service throughout the City of San Luis Obispo. SLO Transit operates a total of seven regular bus routes on weekdays, six routes on Saturdays, and four routes on Sundays, as well as a Downtown Trolley Thursdays through Sundays. Five routes operate Monday through Friday evenings during the school year. Organizational Structure SLO Transit is owned by the City of San Luis Obispo and is administered as a division of the Public Works Department. Operations are contracted to First Transit. SLO Transit has two employees, a Transit Manager who reports to the Public Works Deputy Director, and a Transportation Assistant who reports to the Transit Manager. An organization chart is presented in Figure 2-1. Figure 2-1: SLO Transit Organizational Chart SLO TRANSIT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT' Director of Public Works 1.0 FTE TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PW Deputy Director 1.0 FTE TRANSIT SERVICES Transit Manager 1.0 FTE Transportation Assistant 1.0 FTE Draft Final Report 29 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo SLO Transit Service Description Fixed Route Service SLO Transit provides intra-city fixed-route transit service, which,includes seven transit routes and a trolley service in the downtown area. Table 2-1 describes the operating characteristics for all fixed routes in the SLO Transit system and Figure 2-2 presents a map of the fixed-route network. As seen on this map, all routes except 6a serve the downtown transfer center at Osos and Palm. Descriptions of each route follow. Route 1 Broad/Johnson/University Square — Route 1 consists of a one-way loop serving the southeastern section of San Luis Obispo, and two-way service ending in a small loop structure in the northwestern part of the city. Major trip generators served by Route 1 include University Square, Sierra Vista Hospital, the Police Station, the library, City Hall, the county government building, Staples, the shelter, French Hospital, County Health Services, and the Laurel Lane Market. Route 2 South Higuera/Suburban — Route 2 generally serves the area southwest of downtown San Luis Obispo with two-way service. Major trip origins and destinations include downtown, the Department of Motor Vehicles, Social Security and other major social services, the Prado Day Center on Prado Road, and Higuera Plaza. Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold — Route 3 serves southeastern San Luis Obispo with a large one-way loop, providing access to French Hospital, the Equal Employment Office, Staples, County Health Services, the Laurel Lane Market, Marigold Center, the Damon Garcia Sports Complex, and Mission Plaza. Route 4 Madonna/Laguna 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 current Greyhound bus station, Madonna Plaza, the Promenade, the Post Office, Laguna Plaza, and University Square. Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna—Route 5 is the reverse direction of 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 current Greyhound bus station, Madonna Plaza, the Promenade, the Post Office, Laguna Plaza, and University Square.. Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland — Route 6a serves Cal Poly and neighborhoods to the west of the campus. Destinations include the Graphic Arts building, Mott Gym, the University Union, the Agriculture Building, Foothill Plaza, University Square, Sierra Vista Hospital, and Mustang Village. Routes 6a and 6b are interlined in a figure-eight route pattern on weekends as well as in the evening and during the summer. Draft Final Report 30 0 o` O N d � o z' o U a Y P O O O O O O O N OO O O O O O N O O O O O O N O O O O N MO 7 SM M �O %O y� ' <I' �o �O %O �O y� ' C R �D %O d y ^ ax 13 dry Ca. aaaaa0% as a. aaaa. a ar- 0a 0.0\ a' aaaa a c aormoo 0 0 0 oroov o rno M � 'n � rn ao o CD CD � y O N — O N NMQ O N SON Nt!14 O O NM Q O O ^ C'! V) V1 t:4 'i1 V1 �O �D \.o �o 0 \.O O \O 6QQ ¢ 06 ¢ ¢ ¢ a' ' F' lC MM � e} O 'n v1O MM7 <!' O v'1 v1p M � OO 'n v1O M 7OO p � h '!'i00iiN Q7 cn 'n O MN 0t O NOS O O ^ N M L. \.O 'C �o \0 \O ON 00 �O %0 �O as 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 .N. o0 00 00 00 N. Y Y C/� O y. y C O NN N N O O 0y O 'O u � y r m � FI N Vl N !7 fA N fA V1 QI wq a C C c C C c C C O p i a y8.3 N 'CO j jOOO N y0 OOOOO O N � i OOOO N ED i Vl W N p N M �O �p W ' C' W ' R -tf �o `p 0 CD cc — coo n o� ov o cc 0� o� o 0 N Q � ca w rl p oo 7 ooO rNa a oo � ooO reg0 0. 0. 0. 0. aa 40. 40. F o v o o _ c M r n r a o o M r n r o O e+f 7 N H O Q O Hf 7 �..� N O O O O N e+i Q O p e!1 C O C r O O b C C O r C C p+ �p �p �p �p yj 0\ b �p �p �p h N O en 'n O tom•f N N 0 O O N O R 0 0 0 N N 60 06 66 66 6+ 66 60 06 00 00 E ca m a a 7 O C C O C O O G d a p cra p c o E c b U u d a�1 � OY FF ,_ t0 O cYp FF NcaOX FF N O tYp y FF O c O rm 0 0 p o o '0 3 o 0 0 0 3 2 0 r o 0 0 •, x o c o o a e c 0 c "°p. °. po H o o ay a o ��yy y o y °pp. °pp. po y y o aO ap _app p y iy' 0 0 V CJ 3 p O R V V Q W cn ., � U Ra o CGv� nU � � �o CG v� ., � U m 0 g 07m - � U p o p o Y M 0 R -'o O a V Q 0 a f i 0 r - cq C 11t,02" to d a L F J f N N d L 7 � u oa ri z a A C Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown-Route 6b serves Cal Poly and downtown, including the Graphic Arts building, Mott Gym, the University Union, Vista Grande, VA Hall, City Hall, the Library, and the county government building. Routes 6a and 6b are interlined in a figure-eight route pattern on weekends as well as in the evening and during the summer. Downtown Trollev-The trolley provides transit service within downtown San Luis Obispo, and between downtown and area hotels on Monterey Street. Destinations include the library, county goverment center, Mission Plaza, and the Historical Museum. On Thursday evenings the trolley also serves the weekly Farmers' Market Downtown. Service Details Route mileage, cycle time, and average speed are presented in Table 2-2. Table 2-2:Roundtrip Mileage,Cycle Time,and Average Speed Route Roundtrip Average Cycle Average Speed Mileage Time minutes (mph) Mond -Thursday Route 1 Broad/Johnson/University Square 10.0 54 11.1 Route 2 South lE era/Suburban 7.0 35 12.0 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 7.7 32 14.4 Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 12.5/12.9 55 13.6/14.1 Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 11.9/13.3 57 12.5/14.0 Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 4.4 24 11.0 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 3.6 22 9.8 Downtown Trolley(Thursday only 2.9 20 8.7 Friday Route 1 Broad/Johnson/University Square 10.0 54 11.1 Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 7.0 35 12.0 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 7.7 32 14.4 Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 12.5/12.9 55 13.6/14.1 Route 5 Cal Poly/La Lake/Madonna 11.9/13.3 57 12.5/14.0 Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 4.4 24 11.0 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 3.6 22 9.8 Downtown Trolley 2.7 20 8.1 Saturd Route 2 South lE era/Suburban 7.0 35 12.0 Route 3 JohnsonBroa old 7.7 32 14.4 Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 12.5 55 13.6 Route 5 Cal Poly/L Lake/Madonna 13.3 57 14.0 Route 6a Cal Poly/Ifighland 4.4 24 11.0 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 3.6 1 22 1 9.8 Downtown Trolley 2.7 20 8.1 Sund Route 2 South lE era/Suburban 7.0 35 12.0 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 7.7 32 14.4 Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 12.5 55 13.6 Route 5 Cal Poly/La Lake/Madonna 13.3 57 14.0 Downtown Trolley 2.7 20 8.1 Sources:SLO Transit Public Timetables/SLO Transit Draft Final Report 33 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo SLO Transit vehicles operate approximately 119 hours per day Monday through Wednesday, 125 hours Thursdays, 115 hours Fridays, 57 hours Saturdays and 45 hours Sundays. They travel approximately 1,339 miles per day Monday through Wednesday, 1,393 miles Thursdays, 1,322 miles Fridays, 632 miles Saturdays and 525 miles Sundays. Route 4 operates the most Monday through Friday, traveling 349 miles in almost 28 revenue hours. Saturday through Sunday, Route 5 operates the most, traveling 133 miles in 10 hours Saturdays and Sundays. Route 6b provides the least amount of service Monday through Saturday (except Thursdays, when the Trolley travels only 54 miles in 5.5 hours), traveling less than 94 miles in approximately 13 hours Monday through Friday, and less than 33 miles in 4.5 hours on Saturdays. On Sundays, the Trolley provides the least amount of service, traveling 52 miles in 5.5 hours. Table 2-3 presents daily revenue miles and hours for each route. Table 2-3:Daily Revenue Miles and Hours Route Miles I Hours Monday-Thursday Route 1 Broad/Johnson/University Square 113.4 11.27 Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 156.5 14.28 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 177.1 14.50 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 348.7 27.64 Route 5 Cal Poly/La Lake/Madonna 332.9 25.64 Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 116.4 12.99 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 93.6 13.08 Downtown Troll (Thursday only 51.3 5.50 TotaVMursday Total 1,338.6/1,389.9 119.40/124.90 Friday Route 1 Broad/Johnson/University Square 113.4 11.27 Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 156.5 14.28 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 177.1 14.50 Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 348.7 27.64 Route 5 Cal Poly/La Lake/Madonna 332.9 25.64 Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 61.6 6.92 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 47.3 6.43 Downtown Trolley 84.8 9.00 Total 1,322.3 115.68 Saturday Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 105.0 10.00 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 110.4 9.55 Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 125.0 9.92 Route 5 Cal Poly/La Lake/Madonna 133.0 9.95 Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 39.6 4.45 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 32.4 4.45 Downtown Trofley 1 86.8 9.00 Total 631.2 57.32 Sun Route 2 South Ifi era/Suburban 105.0 10.00 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 110.4 9.55 Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 125.0 9.92 Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 133.0 9.95 Downtown Trolley 52.0 5.50 Total 525.4 44.92 sources:SLO Transit(from First Transit) Draft Final Report 34 i Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo SLO Transit's maximum vehicle requirement includes a peak pullout of 10 vehicles during Thursday PM peak, including the Trolley. Not including the Trolley, the maximum vehicle requirement is 9, including Monday through Friday AM Peak, Midday, and PM Peak. Routes 4 and 5 require the most vehicles for service, two at most times except evenings, while all other routes require only one (or 0.5) vehicle to operate. Table 2-4 presents the vehicle requirements for each route during each time period. Table 2-4:Vehicle Requirements Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak Evening Mond —Thursday Route 1 Broad/Johnson/University Square 1 1 1 0 Route 2 South Higuera/Suburban 1 1 1 0.5 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 1 1 1 0.5 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 2 2 2 1 Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 2 2 2 0 Route 6a Cal Poly/lEghland 1 1 1 0.5 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 1 1 1 0.5 Downtown Troll (Thursday only) 0 0 1 1 Friday Route 1 Broad/Johnson/University Square 1 1 1 0 Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 1 1 1 0 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Mari old 1 I 1 0 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 2 2 2 0 Route 5 Cal Poly/La Lake/Madonna 2 2 2 0 Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Downtown Troll0 1 1 1 Saturday Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 1 1 1 0 Route 3 Johnson/Broad/Marigold 1 1 1 0 Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 2 2 2 0 Route 5 Cal Poly/La Lake/Madonna 2 2 2 0 Route 6a Cal Poly/lfthland 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 0 Downtown Trolley 0 1 1 1 1 day Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 1 1 1 0 Route 3 JohnsonBroad/Mari old 1 1 1 0 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 2 2 2 0 Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 2 2 2 0 Downtown Trolley 0 1 1 0 source: SLO Transit Public Timetables Draft Final Report 35 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Fare Structure SLO Transit passengers have multiple fare payment options, including cash fares, One-, Three-, Five-, Seven- and 31-Day Passes, a Universal Pass, a pre-paid arrangement with Cal Poly, and the Flash Pass Program (arrangements with other employers such as Home Depot). The Downtown Trolley costs $0.25 for all passengers, and the Gold Pass program provides free transit passes to employees who work in downtown and live within San Luis Obispo's city limits. The monthly Regional Pass and Universal Pass are available from SLORTA and are honored by all transit operators in the county. The city receives 2.5%of the gross annual sales of the regional pass. Also, 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), and all transit providers in the county honor the coupons. Most transfers are free, but passengers transferring from the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) system are required to pay $0.75 to transfer onto San Luis Obispo's regular bus routes, and passengers transferring from the Downtown Trolley are required to pay full fare. Table 2-5 summarizes SLO Transit's fare options. Table 2-5:Fare Structure Fare Type Fare Regular Cash Fare $1.00 Senior(62+)/Disabled Cash Fare $0.50 Children Under 5 with Fare-paying Adult Free Downtown Trolley Fare $0.25 1-Day Pass $3.00 3-Day Pass $5.00 5-Day Pass $7.00 7-Day Pass $10.00 Book of 20 Tickets $20.00 ESWE Monthl Pass 3 1-Day Pass $30.00 K-12 Student Monthly Pass $20.00 Senior/Disabled Monthly Pass $10.00 Transfer from Trolley Full Fare Transfer from RTA $0.75 Transfer from SLO Transit Free Regional Pass(monthly) $50.00 Senior/Disabled/K-12 Student Regional Pass $25.00 (monthly Universal Pass $30.00 Cal Poly Affiliates with Valid Student ID Prepaid Gold Pass subsidized ass) Free Home Depot Flash Pass Free Sources:SLO Transit and SLORTA Changes to the fare system over the past few years include the addition of One-, Three-, Five-, and Seven-Day Passes and 31-Day Student Passes, as well as the implementation of a $0.25 fare for the Downtown Trolley. Additionally, the Flash Pass Program is offered to employees of participating companies in San Luis Obispo (this began with Home Depot). The Flash Pass, Draft Final Report 36 1 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo issued by the City of San Luis Obispo (which is reimbursed by the Air Pollution Control District), is valid on all regular SLO Transit routes excluding the Downtown Trolley. Passenger Amenities Throughout the transit network, passengers benefit from a variety of amenities, including bus stop signs (all 153 service stops are designated stops with signs and poles), transit shelters, and benches. Other Transportation Providers There are a variety of other transportation providers operating within SLO Transit's service area. Following is a brief description of the service provided by each operator: San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) —SLORTA operates Runabout, the ADA complementary paratransit service within the City of San Luis Obispo, which is discussed below. In addition to Runabout, SLORTA administers two fixed route transit systems in San Luis Obispo County: RTA Regional Buses (RTA) and South County Area Transit (SCAT). Of these two systems, RTA is the only service operating within the City of San Luis Obispo. In fact, three of RTA's four routes serve the City of San Luis Obispo, with the fourth route serving the city as well during weekday rush hours. In addition to the City of San Luis Obispo, RTA 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, among others. SCAT includes four routes in the Five Cities area. RTA operates all routes during the week with limited service on three of the routes on Saturdays and Sundays (Sunday service began September 1, 2006). SLORTA also operates the Cambria Trolley, Avila Trolley, Five Cities Shuttle, Nipomo and South Bay Dial-A-Ride services, and the Templeton-Shandon Shuttle. The SLORTA agency was created through a joint powers agreement between San Luis Obispo County and the seven incorporated cities within the county. Runabout—ADA paratransit service in the City and County of San Luis Obispo is administered by the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) in accordance with the ADA. This demand response transit is provided through a contractor-operated service called "Runabout", which is a door-to-door transportation service that complements all fixed-route transit service in San Luis Obispo County. Runabout service is provided within the City of San Luis Obispo run the same hours that either SLO Transit and RTA services. The one-way passenger fare for the paratransit service is $4.00 plus $0.25 for each service area zone crossed during a one-way trip. For ADA certified passengers,they are double the regular one-way bus fare for the same trip distance. The extent of each service zone is detailed in Table 2-6 below. Trip times are comparable to those provided by regular bus service. Draft Final Report 37 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 2-6:Runabout Service Zone Areas Service Area Zones San Luis Obispo,Cuesta- -the-Sea San Mi el,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 Source:SLORTA The Runabout service is funded through a joint operating agreement (JOA) among all local jurisdictions and SLORTA. 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 transit network, or • Are unable to utilize the fixed-route network because they cannot get to or from a boarding or disembarking location. Service is available to non-ADA passengers for the regular fare as stated above; however priority is given to ADA certified riders(who receive the reduced fare). An ADA trip precludes that: • The rider is certified and the trip eligible for ADA paratransit service, and • Pick-up and drop-off points are within% mile of a regular bus route. 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 does not guarantee non-ADA certified passengers a reservation until 2:00PM the day before the scheduled trip. 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 30-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 60 days their Runabout service privileges will be suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. Ride On — Ride-On's Transportation Management Association 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 Draft Final Report 38 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo visitors. Ride-On also organizes vanpools for individuals who live and work in proximity to each other. From approximately 1996 to 2006, Ride-On also provided the Safe Ride Home shuttle for Cal Poly students. This service operated on Thursday through Saturday nights, from 9:OOPM to 2:30AM. Service was discontinued in April 2006 due to student violence on shuttle buses. Cal Poly Late Night Escort Service — Cal Poly provides free transportation for students, faculty, and staff during evening hours on and in the immediate vicinity (up to %r mile) of the Cal Poly campus. Shuttles run each hour from dusk until Library closing from the Library, University Union, and the Business Building, or on-demand from Public Safety Service, Building 74. 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 (to San Diego via Los Angeles) and the Coast Starlight (Los Angeles to Seattle) connects San Luis Obispo with destinations to the north and south. Thruway bus service connects San Luis Obispo to the San Joaquin Valley. Greyhound— Provides intercity bus service between San Luis Obispo and destinations across California and the United States. The Greyhound bus station is currently located on South Street, however Greyhound is looking for a new location. Some Greyhound routes also stop at the Amtrak station on Santa Rosa Street. In addition to the services described above, there are multiple taxi, limousine, and bus charter companies operating in San Luis Obispo. Financial Information This section provides an overview of operating expenses and revenue sources. Table 2-7 presents revenue and expenses by source for Fiscal Year 2006. This table shows that vehicle operation is the largest expense line item. General administrative expenses was the next largest expense category. While passenger fares contributed 17% of revenue in FY 2006, while the largest source of revenue was state funding. Draft Final Report 39 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 2-7:Expenses and Revenue(F1'22006) STS S �'�'rr ��!,7^�:Yy„r{f �iwLt t ^.= yn�fQrh h CatCgO!'yk -s r.r` E1nlUWIt Ex ease Vehicle Operation $1,650,244 Vehicle Maintenance $275,951 Non-Vehicle Maintenance $6,687 General Administrative $675,107 Total $2,607,989 Revenue Directly Generated $453,002 Local Sources $0 State Sources $1,640,858 Federal Sources $514,128 Total $2,607,988 source:2006 NTD Reporting Capital Resources SLO Transit's capital resources, owned by the City of San Luis Obispo, include buses, bus stops, shelters, supervisory and maintenance vehicles, and property. The city also owns the SLO Transit depot located at 29 Prado Road, which is leased to First Transit and is the location where fixed route buses are stored and maintained. SLO Transit administrative offices are located in the city's Public Works Department building at 919 Palm Street in downtown San Luis Obispo. Besides the capital assets owned by SLO Transit, this section also presents the current capital program Excluding the downtown transfer center, SLO Transit currently owns 41 bus shelters and 69 benches throughout San Luis Obispo. SLO Transit has purchased four new bus shelters since the 2004 SRTP. The SLO Transit vehicle fleet includes buses and rubber-wheel trolleys used in revenue service that are leased to First Transit and three non-revenue vehicles that are used for supervisory personnel and maintenance purposes (as well as two non-revenue vehicles that are owned by First Transit). The peak requirement for service is nine fixed-route vehicles and one trolley, while the full fleet size is 14 fixed-route vehicles and two trolleys, resulting in spare ratios of 56% for fixed-route vehicles and 100% for the trolley. The vehicle fleet is presented in the next section. The current capital program in the 2007 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) contains five projects that include such items as bus rehabilitation, fleet replacement, and capital maintenance. Composition of Revenue Fleet The current SLO Transit fleet contains 15 active vehicles, including 14 fixed route vehicles and two rubber-wheeled trolleys. The vehicle fleet is comprised of a diverse array of vehicles, Draft Final Report 40 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo including high- and low-floor buses, buses manufactured between 1982 and 2008, and buses varying in length from 30' to 409, as well as two 27' trolleys. Recently a new Trolley vehicle was delivered. Table 2-8 presents the details of the fleet inventory. In addition, all SLO Transit vehicles are wheelchair accessible in accordance with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Table 2-8: Inventory of the SLO Transit Vehicle Fleet Year Manufacturer Vehicle Body Style Fuel Number of Length Vehicles 1982 Orion 30 lE h Floor Diesel 2 1992 Gilhg 40 ffigh Floor Diesel 2 1994 Orion 40 High Floor CNG 1 1997 Gillig 35 lligh Floor Diesel 4 2001 Gillig 40 Low Floor Diesel 3 2007 1 Giflig 1 30 1 Low Floor Diesel 2 2008 1 Double K 1 30 1 Trolley Gasoline I Source:SLO Transit October 2008 Maintenance of Vehicles SLO Transit's current Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility, where vehicles are stored, refueled and maintained, is located at 29 Prado Road. The facility includes operations offices, maintenance bays and bus staging, parking, and dispatching. Additionally, a mechanical bus washer recently was built on the premises. First Transit is responsible for all vehicle maintenance. Historical Trends National Transit Database (NTD) reporting provides a glimpse of historical performance for SLO Transit over the past five years. Two types of trends are presented: service trends and financial trends. The service trends present the amount of service operated over the last five years, as well as ridership. The financial trends present the operating costs and funding for operations for the same five-year period. Service Level Trends Over the past five years SLO Transit service has declined slightly, while ridership has increased dramatically. Table 2-9 presents the service and ridership trends for SLO Transit. This table shows that revenue hours and miles declined from 2002 to 2004, increased from 2004 to 2005, and declined again from 2005 to 2006. Ridership, on the other hand, declined by 6% from 2002 to 2003, but then increased by 41% from 2003 to 2006. The State Controllers report shows a decline in ridership in FY 2007. Draft Final Report 41 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 2-9:SLO Transit Service Level Trends 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Annual Passengers 721,466 677,355 705,806 938,952 955,287 934,534 Revenue Hours 36,599 36,497 25,733 32,417 32,350 32,653 Revenue Miles 394,674 392,462 361,378 379,000 364,539 367,217 Peak Vehicles 11 1 11 10 10 11 11 Source:2006 NTD Reporting,State Controller Report Financial Trends The financial trends show that both the cost and amount of funding that SLO Transit has been receiving over the last 5 years has been growing, except in 2006. In terms of costs, the actual vehicle operational costs have increased substantially, while both vehicle and non-vehicle maintenance costs have been inconsistent. General administrative costs have increased by 149% since 2002, increasing every year except 2004. Funding for the most part has kept up with the cost of running the system. The bulk of funding has come from state sources, followed by federal sources and directly generated revenues such as from the farebox. Local assistance decreased to nothing from 2003 to 2004, but fare revenues increased dramatically. While federal funding increased from 2002 to 2004 and then decreased from 2004 to 2006, state funding and directly generated revenues have grown consistently. The trends for system-wide expenses are presented in Table 2-10, while funding sources are presented in Table 2-11. Table 2-10: SLO Transit Expense Trends 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Vehicle Operation $1,166,752 $1,669,060 $1,346,647 $1,845,667 $1,650,244 Vehicle Maintenance $448,490 $65,794 $520,667 $326,700 $275,951 Non-Vehicle Maintenance $15,898 $19,735 $15,870 $64,014 $6,687 General Administrative $270,800 $455,295 $431,170 $552,664 $675,107 Total $1,901,940 $2,209,884 $2,314,354 $2,789,045 $2,607,989 Source:2006 NTD Reporting Table 2-11:SLO Transit Revenue by Source Trends 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Directly Generated $87,388 $83,858 $394,943 $436,174 $453,002 Local $283,115 $283,938 $1,821 $0 $0 State $874,437 $1,035,491 $1,004,949 $1,788,915 $1,640,858 Federal $657,000 $806,597 $912,641 $563,956 1 $514,128 Total $1,901,940 $2,209,884 $2,314,354 $2,789,045 $2,607,988 Source:2006 NTD Reporting Draft Final Report 42 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo 3. Initial Public Outreach Introduction The SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan includes an extensive community participation program designed to elicit input from members of the general public, current users of the system, community leaders, key policy decision makers and other transportation stakeholders in San Luis Obispo. The public outreach efforts include such activities as drop-in sessions, stakeholder interviews, and interviews with SLO Transit bus operators. In all, a total of more than 150 people provided input into the study, as follows: +rg.4, rInte'i�vtew Type ., Number>� Drop-Ins Cal Poly 40 Downtown SLO(AM Peak) 10 Downtown SLO(PM Peak) 50 Total 100 Stakeholder Interviews 45 Bus Operator Interviews 6 Total 151 The following chapter describes the on-board survey conducted in October of 2007. Drop-In Sessions A "drop-in" session is a session where the public talks directly to members of the consultant team on a one-on-one basis and offers comments on the system or suggestions for improvements. Three drop-in sessions were held, one on the California Polytechnic State University campus on October 23`d, 2007, and two in downtown San Luis Obispo on October 23`d and October 25 ', 2007. Together, the three sessions produced comments from approximately 100 individuals. Although comments were gathered from both users and non-users, more non-users were targeted at the drop-in sessions so that the consultant team could learn why they do not utilize the bus system. Comments from bus riders will be gathered as part of the on-board survey process. Comments from the drop-in sessions are grouped into several categories for this summary, as follows: • Service Issues/Quality of Service Issues • Mobility Issues/Transportation Demand Management Issues • Public Information • Other Comments Draft Final Report 43 ' I Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Service Issues/Quality of Service Issues Overall, when asked their opinion about transit service in San Luis Obispo, most interviewees at the drop-in sessions stated that SLO Transit provided a good and useful service for the people who needed to utilize it. However, most of the interviewees at the drop-in sessions were straightforward about the various reasons regarding transit service and the quality of service that have led them to conclude that they themselves do not need to utilize SLO Transit. Many interviewees stated that the primary issues they had with SLO Transit's existing services was that the bus routes either did not go where they needed them to go or that they did not run often enough or late enough. Related to these issues is the comment from several people that SLO Transit routes do not operate near their homes. Other comments regarding the current SLO Transit service was that the City should invest in new vehicles in order to increase ridership, and that transit service in San Luis Obispo was simply too slow. This last comment was made by a person who stated that they used to utilize transit services frequently in San Francisco, and that the lack of any express services in San Luis Obispo made trips simply take too much time.. Some interesting comments from people at the drop-in sessions included the suggestion that fare- free service would "certainly" increase ridership, and that the inability to take pets anywhere on the transit system was a hindrance to their use of the service. Finally, an important comment mentioned by some interviewees at the drop-in sessions was that the bus schedule would not be useful for them because they run several errands either before or after work and doing all these errands via public transit would simply take too much time. This concept of"trip linking" is recognized as an issue facing transit systems throughout the nation; one way to address this issue is for the community to plan for better integrated transportation and land use functions, so that many trips can be accomplished by walking and not having to utilize a single occupant automobile to run errands. Mobility Issues/Transportation Demand Management Issues A series of comments made by interviewees at the various drop-in sessions was more related to larger issues reflecting mobility and the management of transportation demand for the entire community and not just issues over which SLO Transit has direct control. For example, the most common sentiment stated by many people at the drop-in sessions was simply that they do not need to utilize the transit system at all because they own an automobile. Related to automobile ownership were issues regarding parking; several interviewees stated that they had free parking at their place of employment, and so there was no reason for them to utilize SLO Transit. One person specifically mentioned that it was simply "not all that hard to find parking in downtown" San Luis Obispo. Another interviewee stated that although parking may be sometimes difficult to locate in downtown San Luis Obispo, doing so was still easier than "figuring out how to use the bus". Draft Final Report 44 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Finally, a few people mentioned that one reason they do not need to utilize SLO Transit is that San Luis Obispo's generally mild weather allows them to utilize their bicycles for most of their transportation needs. Although not strictly within the scope of the current study effort, these comments point to the need to ensure a comprehensive bicycle lane system is in place in San Luis Obispo. Public Information One comment specifically mentioned at the drop-in sessions regarding the public information provided by SLO Transit was that it was difficult to "figure out" the bus schedule given the seasonal variations in service on several bus routes, which are all displayed on the reverse side of the system map.. Other Comments Finally, some other comments made by interviewees at the drop-in sessions included: not utilizing SLO Transit because of the inability to cant'a lot of items onto the bus; not riding buses because there were too many "creepy weirdos" on them;that the U.S. Route 101 freeway should be widened instead of encouraging the use of public transportation; and that there are too many vagrants in the vicinity of the Downtown Transit Center and City Hall. It is important to keep in mind that these other comments reflect the attitudes of people who do not utilize SLO Transit and appeared to have very little, if any, reason to contemplate utilizing it in the future. Stakeholder Interviews During the week of October 22°d, 2007, members of the consultant team had 22 sessions with stakeholders in the community representing a broad spectrum of interests, including elected officials; city, regional, and state department and agency staff, and members of the business community, human services sector, California Polytechnic State University, and citizen's groups. Additional stakeholder interviews were conducted in early November when a consultant team member was on-site to attend the MTC Board Meeting. A list of participants is provided in Table 3-1. In all, approximately 45 individuals participated in discussions ranging in length from about 30 minutes to an hour covering topics including the role of public transportation in the community, public policy and finance, SLO Transit operations, community transportation needs, and other perceptions related to bus service and thedirectionof this project. Draft Final Report 45 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 3-1:Stakeholder Meeting Participants Name Organization/Agency Dave Romero,Mayor City of San Luis Obispo Christine Mulholland,Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo Allen Settle,Member San Luis Obis City Council Jean Knox,Chair Mass Transportation Committee(Advisory) AnthonyGutierrez,Student Activities Coordinator Cuesta Board of Trustees Deborah Linden,Chief San Luis Obispo Police Department David Lilly,Regional Transit Manager San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority Jason Gillespie,Transit Systems Coordinator H San Luis Obispo R 'onal Transit Authority Dawn Williams,Transit Systems Analyst San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority Lisa Quinn,Program Coordinator Regional Rideshare Agency Cindy Blake,Administrative Assistant Regional Rideshare Agency Jamie Hill,Bicycle Coordinator Regional Rideshare Agency Allison Merton,Workforce and Economic Development Cuesta College Matthew Green,Director of Workforce and Economic Development Cuesta Colle e Peter Rodgers.Administration Director San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Richard Murphy,Programnung Director San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Eliane Gufflot,GuiltTransportation Planner III San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Tim Gillham,Transportation Planner San Luis Obispo Council of Governments James R.Patterson,Supervisor for District 5/SLOCOG President County of San Luis Obispo/San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Jennifer Allen-Barker,Access Specialist California Polytechnic State University—Disability Resource Center Julie Rockow,Student California Polytechnic State University Dan Block,Principal Bishop's Peak Elementary School Joyce Hunter Principal Sinsheimer Elemennay School Susan Rains,Commuter and Access Service Coordinator California Polytechnic State University—University Police Department Cindy Ca bell Director—Facilities Planning and Capital Projects California Polytechnic State University Joel Neel Associate Director—Facilities Planning and Capital Projects California Polytechnic State University Master Plan Committee California Polytechnic State University Bruce Gibson,Supervisor for District 2/SLOCOG Boardmember County of San Luis Obispo/San Luis Obispo Council of Governments David Elliot,Staff City of San Luis Obispo Cliff Reynolds,President of Local 381 Teamsters'Labor Union Eric Greening Citizen of San Luis Obispo Kim Blakeman,General Manager First Transit Contract Operator of SLO Transit Matt Haller,Maintenance Manager First Transit(Contract Operator of SLO Transit Manaors'Groun First Transit Contract Operator of SLO Transit Rick Johnson,Executive Director California Polechoic State University—Associated Students,Inc. Brandon Souza,Student President California Polytechnic State University—Associated Students,Inc. Mark Shaffer,Director Ride-on Transportation Bob Rutledge,Battalion Chief San Luis Obispp Fire Department Deborah Cash,Administrator San Luis 3biwo Downtown Association As would be expected, the views among the more than 40 participants were widely varied, and yet there were a large number of commonalities found in the discussions, even between those working for agencies and organizations with varied missions. The discussion that follows defines a number of overarching topics that were prevalent during the discussions, along with the range of thoughts that ran through each and shaped them. Broadly, the topic areas include the following: • System Performance: How does SLO Transit perform in terms of several factors, including quality of service, vehicles, responsiveness of management, marketing of the system, and the resultant image of the transit system? Draft Final Report 46 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo • Downtown Transit Center/Regional Connections: Does the Downtown Transit Center function well as a transfer point between services? Is it well-located? • Unmet Service Needs: Are there any transportation needs that are not being met? Are there services being provided that are not needed? What can SLO Transit do to improve service? • System Strengths and Weaknesses: What are the strengths and weaknesses of SLO Transit? How do these factors affect the quality of transit service in the community? • Financial Issues/Other Comments: What other issues affect the service provided by SLO Transit? Specifically, are there any financial issues affecting the transit system? Do any of these financial issues constrain the growth of the SLO Transit system? The following pages describe the findings from the stakeholder interviews with regard to these topics, with particular attention to the range of opinions in each area, but also to the commonalities within each that were found despite that range. Note that these topics are not mutually exclusive and therefore some ideas and issues may be repeated in more than one discussion. SLO Transit System Performance As noted at the outset, after speaking with over 40 individuals representing a broad range of organizations and points of view, it appears that although there is a wide range of opinions regarding several factors affecting the SLO Transit system, there is also a great amount of common ground in terms of the stakeholders' views of the performance of the transit system. However, there are many particular issues that merit discussion which are most familiar to certain constituencies and their representative stakeholders, and this report allows for an in-depth examination of these nuances. SLO Transit Service The need for a public transportation system in San Luis Obispo was accepted almost universally by all of the stakeholders; almost everyone with whom we spoke saw SLO Transit as a necessary part of the city's infrastructure. Everyone understands that there are a significant number of individuals in the community who are transit dependent due to age, income or disability and who rely upon public transportation for mobility. In addition, most stakeholders recognized that the mobility issues created by the presence of a major university campus in the community (i.e., California Polytechnic State University) supplements the need for a public transportation system. The public policy issue, therefore, is not whether to provide public transportation, but rather whether it is provided effectively and efficiently by SLO Transit. This is where the some of the diversity in the opinions of those who were interviewed can be seen. The vast majority of the stakeholders interviewed felt that SLO Transit does a good job of providing public transportation in its service area. They felt that the service was, in the Draft.Final Report 47 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo aggregate, reliable and reasonably priced for the user. However, there were definitely some issues related to the provision of the transit service that were seen as being areas needing improvement. These include the following topic areas: • Many stakeholders felt that the SLO Transit system had too much of an "academic bias" that reflected a strong orientation to providing service oriented around the needs of the California Polytechnic State University (i.e., Cal Poly). Specifically, they cited the fact that evening service was only operated on Mondays through Thursdays — following the Cal Poly class calendar — and even then only when school is in session. These stakeholders felt that the night service was something that the rest of the community could make better use of if it was operated at additional times not solely related to Cal Poly's needs. However, a few stakeholders took pains to point out that most Cal Poly students are also residents of San Luis Obispo and that by serving their needs some of the needs of the City are also being met. • Many stakeholders stated that on-time performance is a problem for several routes on the SLO Transit system, especially over the past few years as they perceive traffic congestion to have increased. Some stated that if transit service were more reliable, then more people who presently drive would consider utilizing it. • A major issue for many stakeholders that they feel needs to be addressed is the lack of coordination between the SLO Transit system and the Regional Transit Authority (i.e., RTA), which operates service throughout the county. The perceived lack of schedule coordination between the two systems was remarked upon by many stakeholders, and several felt that this lack of coordination prevented more people from utilizing the regional transit system — both SLO Transit and the RTA — to their fullest extent. Specifically, some stakeholders remarked that the ability to better coordinate SLO Transit and RTA services would lead to fewer students needing to drive to Cuesta College, which is located outside of the City of San Luis Obispo. Other issues related to coordination between SLO Transit and the RTA mentioned by the stakeholders included the need for better fare coordination, if not a fully integrated fare structure between the two systems. An example specifically cited by several stakeholders was that Cal Poly students could ride SLO Transit for no out-of-pocket cost but still were required to pay a fare each time they boarded an RTA bus. It should be noted that some stakeholders indicated that they felt the RTA service was not as well run as SLO Transit. Finally, a few stakeholders. noted that the public information materials for both systems should better reflect the availability of each other's services. • Another major issue for many stakeholders — especially those somehow associated with Cal Poly — is the fact that they perceive many trips on SLO Transit to be greatly overcrowded. In fact, frequent mention was made of the numerous passengers "left behind" at several stops closer to campus because the bus is already full. These stakeholders felt that the overcrowding on SLO Transit buses was a serious issue that needed to be addressed. Draft Final Report 48 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo • Another theme that emerged from several stakeholder interviews is SLO Transit's need to improve both the amenities at its bus stops, including benches and better lighting, and the need to improve the public information available at those bus stops as well. The legibility of schedule and service information posted at bus stops was also an issue of concern to stakeholders representing the low-vision community. • Finally, two service issues which could use improvement were mentioned by several stakeholders. The fust was the impression that night service should be expanded to at least Friday, if not the weekends. The second was the opinion voiced by several stakeholders that some type of"crosstown" bus service would be needed in the not-too- distant future to allow passengers to travel between certain parts of the City without having to go through the Downtown Transit Center. SLO Transit Vehicles The consensus of the majority of stakeholders regarding the SLO Transit fleet was very consistent: they felt that although the buses are clean and generally well-maintained, they were also entirely too small for the needs of the service, especially for bus routes serving the Cal Poly campus. Most of the stakeholders also stated that the fleet was simply too old; however, many stakeholders paid compliments to SLO Transit regarding the recently purchased 30-foot buses and their new color scheme. It should be noted that a few stakeholders mentioned that full-size transit vehicles may not be appropriate in certain neighborhoods of San Luis Obispo, including the downtown area. In addition, another stakeholder mentioned that the buses "frequently" break down because of their age. SLO Transit Mann ement Overall, the stakeholders indicated that the management of SLO Transit was responsive to their needs and concerns, and that the City's new Transit Manager was bringing a "fresh perspective" to SLO Transit. In addition, several stakeholders mentioned that the operator of the SLO Transit system— First Transit —was clearly a high quality provider of service and that the service has a more "professional finish"than it did in recent years. However, some stakeholders stated that SLO Transit's management could be faulted for a lack of coordination with other transit providers in the region(especially with the RTA) in terms of both schedule coordination and overall coordination of planning efforts. One example cited was communication to RTA regarding schedule changes at SLO Transit when evening service was implemented resulting in the RTA not being able to respond quickly with schedule changes to Runabout, the complementary demand responsive services mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which it provides. Draft Final Report 49 C - Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo SLO Transit Marketine When it comes to the marketing of the transit services provided by SLO Transit, the system clearly received more of a mixed review from the various stakeholders. Several stakeholders commented that the system's marketing efforts are very "passive" and that those efforts are limited to primarily making it easy to find system maps and schedules, but that the system's overall marketing efforts have improved recently. Some stakeholders indicated that the "passive" marketing is a likely result of the high percentage of Cal Poly students who ride the system and who are viewed as "captive" riders by SLO Transit; these stakeholders stated that SLO Transit likely thinks it doesn't need to do much marketing because so many of its Cal Poly riders will utilize the service in any event. There were several other comments, pertaining to the marketing efforts of the SLO Transit system which were made by several of the stakeholders. These include the following topic areas: • Some stakeholders feel that not enough is being done to market the new evening services. They fear that if these services are not sufficiently patronized, they may be withdrawn in the future. They stated that better marketing of the evening services was needed to help promote the service and increase its utilization. Several of these stakeholders also felt that new marketing efforts should be directed at potential riders outside of the Cal Poly community, and.that marketing and advertising of any new services being operated by SLO Transit needed to be improved. • Several stakeholders commented on how poorly, the "Gold Pass" (i.e., a downtown employer-subsidized transit pass available to people who work in downtown San Luis Obispo) was marketed. They also indicated that very few people were even aware of the Gold Pass program and that more downtown employers might be involved with the program if they were aware there was an alternative to somehow providing their employees with parking. • Some stakeholders indicated that the schedule information placed on SLO Transit's bus shelters needed to be kept up-to-date, and that sometimes it was outdated. They stated that the importance of the type and amount of information available at bus shelter could not be overstated since this was the location where most people would first come into contact with the SLO Transit system. • Some stakeholders also stated that it would be beneficial to explore the possibility of conducting joint marketing efforts between SLO Transit and the RTA so that more people were aware of both systems and the various places they both serve. • Some stakeholders indicated that a successful marketing effort could backfire because so many SLO Transit buses were already "bursting with passengers" as they approached the Cal Poly campus and that SLO Transit could not handle any more ridership. Draft Final Report 50 i Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo • Finally, some stakeholders mentioned that some type of"Rider Training" program could prove useful to introduce potential new riders on how to utilize the service, especially at the Cal Poly campus, and that more free"Try Transit"promotions should be encouraged. SLO Transit Image The stakeholders' image of the SLO Transit system in the community is generally very positive, with most stakeholders viewing the system as an invaluable asset to the community that provides a good mobility option with clean (if slightly old and undersized) buses. Some stakeholders stated that public transportation in San Luis Obispo does not carry a negative stigma as it does in other communities. However, there was certainly the sentiment among several stakeholders that too many people in San Luis Obispo are likely apathetic and don't spend any time thinking about issues related to the transit system They also stated that, to many people in the community at large, the image of the SLO Transit system is that it is primarily oriented to Cal Poly students. The stakeholders indicated that — after Cal Poly students — many people likely think the system is primarily intended for use by the transit dependent population. Several stakeholders affiliated with the Cal Poly community stated that the "overcrowded buses and the poor on-time performance" of some of the routes serving the campus could only lead to a negative image for the SLO Transit system and that the Cal Poly students were "at the mercy" of SLO Transit. However, one stakeholder did indicate thatmuch of both the ability and willingness of Cal Poly students to utilize SLO Transit— and public transportation in general—was geared to where and how they were raised. The example given was that "someone from San Francisco would more naturally know what to expect from a bus system as opposed to someone from Orange County who has always had a car". Downtown Transit Center/Regional Connections In the aggregate, most stakeholders stated that the Downtown Transit Center was well-located in the downtown area of San Luis Obispo and that there were relatively few negative issues associated with the on-street facility. They viewed it as accessible and centrally-located. Almost all of the stakeholders stated that it was important that the interface between the RTA and SLO Transit be well-coordinated at this facility so that passengers could transfer between the two services with a minimum of trouble. However, the stakeholders did have some specific comments regarding the Downtown Transit Center. These were: • Sometimes, the facility suffers from a negative image because of the "inordinate number" of homeless who tend to congregate near it. Draft Final Report 51 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo • Several stakeholders stated that the SLO Transit side of the facility was fine, but that the RTA side of the facility was "cramped" and undersized. • Some stakeholders mentioned that better wayfinding signage was needed at the facility, and that the availability of bike racks to store bicycles there would be useful. • A few stakeholders indicated that — in the long-term — an off-street facility might be needed in the downtown area and that this facility could perhaps be built as part of a new parking facility and include facilities for intercity bus services as well. However, several stakeholders also mentioned that a major upgrade of the Osos Street/Pahn Street intersection could be undertaken where private vehicular traffic would no longer be allowed and the street area would become a "transit only" facility, with greatly enhanced amenities for the passengers. • Related to the previous topic was the view of one stakeholder who felt that the on-street facility should be seen as a "stopgap" measure until an off-street facility could be constructed. This stakeholder stated that having so many buses idle on the street at one time was detrimental and that better uses could be found for such on-street space. • Some stakeholders also mentioned that the new EDAPTS passenger information system was not functioning well and only served to confuse riders, while one stakeholder specifically mentioned that the intersection of Mill and Osos Streets requires a four-way stop sign. • Finally, a frequently-mentioned issue regarding a shortcoming of the facility is that there are no lavatory facilities available for the passengers to utilize. Most passengers simply use the rest rooms in City Hall, but this is not always the desired solution for some stakeholders. Unmet Service Needs One of the most important subjects that are addressed during the stakeholder interview process is that of unmet service needs. Stakeholder comments ranged over a variety of issues, and these included the following topic areas: • Several stakeholders stated that additional evening service was needed, including on Fridays and throughout the weekend, and that the current configuration of the evening service seemed to be oriented solely to the needs of Cal Poly students. However, one stakeholder pointed out that even the current evening service configuration was not convenient for Cal Poly students who worked and had'off-campus jobs. • Some stakeholders also indicated that additional weekend service was needed. • In terms of unserved areas, a majority of stakeholders indicated that service further out along the Broad Street corridor was necessary, serving the rapidly developing area in this corridor and terminating at the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport. The lack of a traffic Draft Final Report 52 i Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo signal at Aero Drive makes leaving the airport and making a left turn onto Broad Street very dangerous. • Another area some stakeholders mentioned was an extension of service further south along Los Osos Valley Road to serve the Calle Joaquin area. It is anticipated that this area will grow in the future and that possibly even a new park-and-ride facility could be constructed where the U.S. Route 101 freeway meets Los Osos Valley Road. • Several stakeholders also indicated that new "crosstown" transit corridors should be explored so that passengers did not always have to travel through downtown San Luis Obispo, or switch buses there, if they traveling between certain areas of the city. • Another possibly `unmet need" mentioned by one stakeholder was the ability to connect students who reside in the Foothill Boulevard area with the Cuesta College campus utilizing a SLO Transit service and thus giving these students a "one seat ride". However, this campus is well outside the City of San Luis Obispo and some other stakeholders specifically mentioned that the best method by which to serve Cuesta College was to make certain that SLO Transit and the RTA route which serves the Cuesta College campus had well-timed connections. • Several stakeholders all mentioned that the following specific service improvements needed to be more carefully examined.: better coordination between the SLO Transit and RTA services; improved passenger service information at bus stops; more frequent service to relieve overcrowding, especially on routes serving the Cal Poly campus; and the need to purchase both newer and larger transit buses, which would also help relieve overcrowding on certain bus routes. • Finally, similar to the interviewees at the drop-in sessions, some stakeholders mentioned that the bus schedule would not be useful for many people because they run several errands either before or after work and doing all these errands via public transit would simply take too much time. As was previously mentioned, this concept of"trip linking" is recognized as an issue facing transit systems throughout the nation; one way to address this issue is for the community to plan for better integrated transportation and land use functions, so that many trips can be accomplished by walking and not having to utilize a single occupant automobile to run errands. System Strengths and Weaknesses The stakeholders were asked their opinion as to what the SLO Transit system's strengths and weaknesses are. Their responses were: • In terms of the SLO Transit system's strengths, the consensus among the stakeholders is that, overall, SLO Transit provides a reliable public transportation service that is well-run and enjoys a `professional image" in the community. The passengers who utilize the service tend to be frequent riders and have established a "loyal" ridership base for the system. The pulse-scheduled system (i.e., where timed transfers occur at the Downtown Draft Final Report 53 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Transit Center) is seen as convenient for a majority of the clientele. Finally, several stakeholders mentioned that the combined system map and schedule is an "excellent" way by which to present the transit system's routes and timetables. • In terms of the SLO Transit system's weaknesses, the consensus among the stakeholders is that, overall, the system suffers from a negative perception among the Cal Poly community that service is too crowded and unreliable, and in the community at large that the vehicles utilized — while kept clean — are simply too old and small for the Cal Poly routes. In addition, some stakeholders noted that the aforementioned "academic bias" of the system is seen as a weakness by some members of the community. Another weakness is that the system is not as well-coordinated with the services provided by the RTA, and that the marketing of the SLO Transit system could be improved. Finally, some stakeholders also indicated that the poor quality of the bus stop information provided by SLO Transit could be seen as a weakness. Financial Issues/Other Comments Several stakeholders commented on the finances of the SLO Transit system Some felt that the City of San Luis Obispo should be commended for utilizing all of its available TDA funding on public transportation. One stakeholder felt that the City should lobby more effectively to allow Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality(CMAQ) funding to be utilized in San Luis Obispo, even though the metropolitan area is not a clean air non-attainment area. Some stakeholders also felt it was important to recognize the financial contribution made by Cal Poly to the SLO Transit system. One stakeholder also indicated that funding the RTA system was also in the City's best interests, since many residents of the City of San Luis Obispo utilize the RTA system as well. In terms of possible future funding sources from the Cal Poly community, some stakeholders commented that it might be possible — in the future— to assess a student fee per semester which would allow more funds to be gathered to operate additional SLO Transit services. However, one stakeholder pointed out that the Cal Poly students would need to view SLO Transit as an "indispensable"necessity in order for this to occur. A few stakeholders commented on the relationship between the availability of parking — both in downtown San Luis Obispo as well as on the Cal Poly campus — and the use of public transportation. They indicated that transit service would not be some people's first choice because it was still relatively easy and affordable to park in either location. One stakeholder also stated that more peripheral park-and-ride lots would help increase transit ridership. Finally, one stakeholder felt it was important to recognize that— in their opinion— the structure of the contract with the operator of the transit service (i.e., First Transit) was flawed because it was set up on a "per mile" basis instead of on a "per hour" basis. This stakeholder felt that a more realistic — and beneficial — contract for the City of San Luis Obispo would utilize a "per hour" basis since this is the measure upon which the primary cost of providing public transportation service (i.e., labor, or operators' wages) is determined. This stakeholder felt that utilizing a "per hour" basis for the service contract made even more sense since one of the Draft Final Report 54 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo elements most dependent on the miles of service operated — the cost of diesel fuel — was nonetheless a"pass through" cost in the operating contract. Bus Operator Interviews As the front line personnel who both drive the routes every day and receive many of the complaints from passengers, bus driver input to the SRTP process is an important part of the outreach process. Informal conversations with bus drivers were held on Wednesday, October 24"' and Thursday, October 25`h at the SLO Transit bus depot, during the same time period that onboard ridership surveys occurred. Drivers provided input regarding a variety of issues related to SLO Transit operations. A total of six bus drivers provided comments to the consultant during these conversations. Below is a summary of the comments received by bus drivers. Drivers identified a number of capacity issues with SLO Transit buses. Most of the crowding occurs on bus trips that serve the Cal Poly campus between classes. Drivers mentioned that buses that arrive at the campus near the top of the hour are frequently overcrowded. Cal Poly buses are also very crowded towards the end of the day, when most students finish classes. Drivers also mentioned that later evening service is needed on Route 5 to complement Route 4 service. A frequent issue drivers encounter is that there is not enough capacity for bikes on the bus bike racks. This results in passengers with bicycles needing to wait 30 minutes for the next bus. Additional issues regarding service were made during the driver interviews. Drivers mentioned that Route 5 should serve the shopping areas on Los Osos Valley Road all day instead of on select trips. Another comment made by a number of drivers is that Buchon Drive is a difficult street for buses, and that buses should not operate along this street. Another issue brought up by drivers is that throughout San Luis Obispo, trees are not properly trimmed and overhanging tree branches are an issue given the clearance of the buses. Also, drivers mentioned that all routes should end at the downtown transfer point before returning to the bus depot at the end of the day. Drivers have also heard about a number of issues from passengers. Passengers do not like the fact that service is reduced during summer periods, when Cal Poly is not in session. Also, passengers would like to see evening service on Route 1. Another common passenger complaint is the distance between bus stops along the routes. Also, passengers and drivers both have issues with errors on the public timetables. Drivers made a number of comments regarding the transit vehicles and vehicle operations. Drivers mentioned concerns about the age of the fleet, especially the number of vehicles that are over 20 years. old. They also mentioned that the Trolley vehicles are difficult to operate. In terms of vehicle assignment, drivers mentioned that 40 foot long vehicles should be assigned to routes that serve the Cal Poly campus, while 30 foot vehicles are appropriate for other services in town. Drivers who do road reliefs commented that they rarely have enough time to properly conduct pre-trip inspections of the vehicles when they start their shifts. Running time is only a significant issue on routes that serve.the Cal Poly campus, which is primarily due to bus and pedestrian conflicts. On all other routes the only issue with running time is the travel time between individual time-points, and not the amount of time it takes to operate the entire route. Draft Final Report 55 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Summary Whether talking to riders at the drop-in sessions, or the bus drivers, or the stakeholders, there were a number of common threads that ran through all of the sessions: • SLO Transit is, overall, an excellent public transportation system that is well-run and provides a vital service to the community. • SLO Transit service needs to be better coordinated with the services provided by the RTA. • SLO Transit routes which serve the Cal Poly campus are plagued by overcrowding at certain times of the day, which is exacerbated by what are perceived to be buses that are too small for these routes. • SLO Transit should consider additional evening and weekend services, as well as enhanced frequencies of services. • SLO Transit should-also consider new service on the southern end of Broad Street in the "airport corridor"service area. • SLO Transit must address the perception that it is a service primarily for Cal Poly students and transit dependents to one that serves everyone in the community. This can be accomplished first by recognizing that there are a number of choice riders who use the bus now, and by better marketing the service to these and other potential riders. Public transportation is clearly considered an important part of the community's infrastructure, and a part which can be significantly improved in the minds of those who participated. Many concerns, ideas, and issues were raised in these discussions, which will provide a great deal of direction for this project, and which will be used in developing concepts and recommendations in subsequent.phases. Draft Final Report 56 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo 4: On-Board Survey Results From October 23-25, 2007, the consulting team conducted on-board surveys in order to better understand the needs and characteristics of the current SLO 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. Survey Methodology Over the course of three days, every trip that operates during Monday through Thursday was surveyed in order to obtain a snapshot of the average weekday SLO Transit ridership. Surveys were distributed on each trip once, either on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Survey work was not conducted on Monday, as historic ridership trends indicate that Mondays are not representative of typical weekday ridership. All Trolley runs were surveyed on Thursday, since the Trolley does not operate on Tuesday or Wednesday. Sampling Rate For the purpose of this on-board survey, the sampling rate is defined as the percentage of daily SLO Transit ridership that received the survey. The system-wide sampling rate was 100%, as each weekday trip was sampled once over a three-day period. Response Rate In contrast to the sampling rate, the response rate indicates bow many passengers completed the survey form compared to how many received the survey. The response rate for this survey was 14.2%, with 776 passengers responding out of 5,451 surveyed.. Survey Results Affiliation with Cal Poly Over 22,000 people associated with Cal Poly live and/or work in San Luis Obispo. Approximately 19,000 members of the Cal Poly population are students, who as a group tend to have socio-economic characteristics that are different from those of the city's general population. Knowing what proportion of the survey respondents consisted of students and understanding their characteristics will help explain the overall survey results. Figure 4-1 illustrates that approximately three-quarters (71%) of the survey respondents were students at Cal Poly and that very few faculty and staff were among those surveyed. As would be expected, the income distributions for Cal Poly students, staff, and faculty are quite different (see Figure 4-2). Students generally declared very low (30% declared less than $7;500) or very high (29% declared greater than $75,000) household incomes. The most likely explanation for this is that students on the low end are declaring their own personal incomes, while students on Draft Final Report 57 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo the higher end of the scale are declaring their parents' household incomes. Staff members were spread out, declaring annual household incomes from the $15,000 to $34,999 bracket to more than $75,000 per year. Of the faculty that responded to this question, 53% declared household incomes of$75,000 per year or more. Figure 41:Affiliation with Cal Poly No Affiliation No Response 180 6% Faculty 3% Staff 2% Student 71% Figure 4-2:Annual Household Income by Affiliation with Cal Poly 60% 50% 2 r h 0 40% 30% .. 20% a. t � 110% .: T 0% IME rc <$7,500 $7,500- $15,000- $35,000- $50,000- >$75,000 $14,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 Annual Household Income ■All Cal Poly Affiliates■Students O Staff 13 Faculty Draft Final Report 58 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Gender Of the passenger respondents, men and women were represented in relatively equal proportions. Exactly 50% of respondents identified themselves as women, 47% as men, and 3% did not respond to this question. Age The large student population in San Luis Obispo dominates the age distribution of riders.. As seen in Figure 4-3, almost two-thirds (62%) of survey respondents were between 19 and 24 years old, 11% were between 25 and 44, and 9% were between 14 and 18. Figure 4-3:Age Distribution of Survey Respondents No Response 3% <14 60+ 1% 14-18 5% 9% 44-59 9% 25-44 11% 19-24 62% Income Over one-third of respondents reported annual household incomes below $15,000. Although low-income residents tend to be overrepresented on transit systems, this large percentage is more likely due to the high ridership from Cal Poly students. Additionally, 21% of respondents reported annual household incomes of$75,000 or more. This is likely due to Cal Poly faculty and staf Cal Poly students reporting their parents' incomes as annual household income, and older tourists taking the Trolley. Figure 4-4 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 sharp increase in the percentage of respondents with increasing income, likely due to limited parking availability at Cal Poly. Draft Final Report 59 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 4-4:Annual Household Income 25% 22% 22% 21% ° 20% --- e 9 0 15% - - ------ o, 12% 10% e 10% e 7°6 u L 5% d 5% 0% No <$7,500 $7,500- $15,000- $35,000- $50,000- >$75,000 Response $14,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 Annual Household Income 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 survey respondents, 82% had a valid driver's license, but only 60% had a car available for making the trip. Table 4-1 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, 59% of 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 SLO Transit is preferred to driving for many of its passengers, possibly due in part to the cost and limited amount of parking on the Cal Poly campus and downtown. In contrast to these choice riders, 13% of the respondents are "transit dependent" because they did not have the option of driving. Table 4-1:Automobile Availability Car Availability No Car Car Available No License 13% 2% Driver's License 22% 59% Respondents were also asked how many vehicles their households owned. As shown in Figure 4-5, the most common response was three or more (36%), followed by one (24%), two (23%), and none (14%). Draft Final Report 60 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 4-5: Household Vehicle Ownership No Response 3% None Three or More 14% 36% J One 24% Two 23% Transit Use Characteristics Access Mode Respondents were asked how they reached the bus stop. The overwhelming majority (88%) of respondents walked to the bus stop. Three percent of respondents rode their bicycle to the bus stop, and two percent drove to the bus stop. Combined transfers from all bus services (SLO Transit and SLORTA) add up to approximately 6%. None of the other access modes were used for more than I% of trips. Egress Mode Respondents were also asked how they reached their destination after disembarking from the bus. As expected, these results were very similar to those for access mode. The majority(84%) of respondents walked to their destinations. Additionally, 9% transferred to another SLO Transit bus or a SLORTA bus, 2% biked to their destinations, and 2% drove to their destinations. None of the other egress modes were used for more than I% of trips. Figures 4-6 and 4-7 show the distributions of access modes and egress modes, respectively, among riders, while Table 4-2 compares access and egress modes. Draft Final Report 61 C Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 4-6:Access Modes to Bus Stop Drove SLORTA Automobile 2% SLO Trans it 2% Other 4% 1% Rode Bicycle 3% Walked 88% Figure 4-7:Egress Modes from Bus Stop Drove Other Automobile SLORTA 2% 2% 2% No Response 1% SLO Transit 7% Rode Bicycle 2% Walked 84% Table 4-2:Comparison of Access and Egress Modes Access Mode Egress Mode Number Percent Number Percent Walked 681 88% 649 84% Rode Bicycle 23 3% 18 2% SLO Transit 31 4% 53 7% SLORTA 12 2% 18 2% Drove Automobile 19 2% 13 2% Automobile Passenger 2 <1% 4 <1% Mobility Device 2 <I% 3 <1% Other 3 <1% 7 <1% No Response 3 <l% 11 1% Total 776 100% 776 1000/0 Draft Final Report 62 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Transfers Passengers were asked if they had transferred from another bus — approximately 6% said that they had. Of those respondents, approximately 81% gave the route from which they had transferred. These connecting routes, and the number of responses, are presented in Table 4-3. As is evident from the table, 60%transferred from SLO Transit Route 3 or SLO Transit Routes 4 and 5. Of the 35 responses, 27 (77%) transferred from SLO Transit routes and 8 (23%) transferred from SLORTA routes. Table 4-3: Routes Connected From Route Connecting From Responses SLO Route 3 9 SLO Route 5 7 SLO Route 4 5 SLO Route 1 4 SLORTA Route 10 4 SLORTA Route 9 3 SLO Route 2 1 SLO Route 6b 1 SLORTA Route 12 1 Total 35 Passengers were also asked if they were going to transfer to another bus. Approximately 9% said that they were, and 79% of those gave the route number to which they were transferring. Table 4-4 gives the connecting bus routes and corresponding number of responses. SLO Transit Routes 4 and 5 were the most frequently cited routes to which respondents transferred. Of the 55 responses, 40 (73%) were transferring to a SLO Transit route and 15 (27%)were transferring to a SLORTA route. Table 44: Routes Connecting To Route Connecting From Responses SLO Route 4 11 SLO Route 5 10 SLORTA Route 12 7 SLO Route 3 6 SLO Route 6b 6 SLORTA Route 10 5 SLO Route 2 4 SLO Route 6a 3 SLORTA Route 9 3 Total 55 Draft Final Report 63 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Frequency and Length of Use Passengers were asked how often they ride SLO Transit buses. Figure 4-8 presents the responses and reflects that a majority (79%) use transit regularly (3 or more days per week). Four percent were riding for the first time. Both Cal Poly students and respondents who are not affiliated with the university tend to use transit at least three days per week. Figure 4-8:Frequency of Use No Answer First Time 2% 4% Less than 1 day/week 4% 1-2 days/week 5+days/week 11% 44% 3-4 days/week 35% Respondents were also asked how long they have been riding SLO Transit. The results for all survey respondents are presented in Figure 4-9. For Cal Poly students who responded to this question, the most common result was less than six months (43%), for Cal Poly staff it was five or more years (42%), and for Cal Poly faculty is was also five or more years (45%). Figure 4-9: Length of Use No Answer 5+years 2% 9% 18% 3-4 years Less than 6 months 39% 1-2 years 24% 6 months to 1 year 8% Draft Final Report 64 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Prior Mode Survey respondents who had been riding SLO Transit for less than a year were asked for their former mode of travel, and almost all answered. Of those who responded, 38% said that they had previously walked to their destinations, and 34% either drove or were passengers in a private automobile. The breakdown of prior modes of travel is shown in Figure 4-10. Figure 4-10:Prior Mode of Travel Other 15% SLORTA 1% Rode in an Walked Automobile 38% 5% Drove Automobile 29% Rode Bicycle 12% Fare Media Respondents were asked how they paid for their bus trip, whether it was with cash, a Cal Poly ID, a transfer, a monthly pass, a universal pass, a SLORTA pass, or if it was free. By far, the most common fare medium used was a Cal Poly ID, with significant groups also using Cash or a SLO Transit pass. Figure 4-11 illustrates which fare media were used by respondents from the regular fixed routes. Figure 4-11:Fare Media No Response Free Transfer 2% 1% Cash Free/Other 1 : SLOTransit 1% Pass 7% SLORTA Pass 2% Universal Pass 2% Cal Poly ID 74% Draft Final Report 65 ! J; Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Trp Purpose Figure 4-12 shows the purpose of the trip being made when each passenger was surveyed. School trips (to, from, or school-related) were the most common trip purpose, with 67% of trips, followed by work (9%). Individuals who listed more than one trip purpose were put in a category called "Multi-Purpose". Figure 412:Trip Purpose Multi-Purpose Recreation/ 50/o Other Medical/ Social 2% Dental 2% No Response 2% 3% Personal �Y Business r o Shopping 5/0 5% Work 9% School 67% Passenger Satisfaction/Attitudes Service Ratings Survey respondents were asked to rate the quality of the transit service in seven different categories, including safety performance, operator courtesy, on-time performance, vehicle cleanliness, value received for fare, service in general, and service information. Ratings included excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor. Figure 4-13 shows the composite rating based on all seven areas. SLO Transit received a strongly positive rating, with 68% of respondents rating the service as excellent.or very good. Figure 4-14 shows the ratings broken down by category. The worst rating is for on-time performance, where 27% of respondents gave SLO Transit a rating of fair or poor. The best rating is for value received for fare, where 85% of respondents gave SLO Transit a rating of very good or excellent. Draft Final Report 66 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 4-13:Overall Service Rating Poor No Response Fair 1% 4% 6% Excellent Good 34% 21% Very Good 34% Figure 4-14:Service Ratings by Category ■Poor■Fair ❑Good ❑Very Good ■Excellent ®No Response 100% 90% v, 80% N. a 70% 60% 50010 C S C 40% a30% _ 4 20% - 10 ~. a 0% r Safety Operator On-Titre Vehicle Value Service in Service Performance Courtesy Perforrmnce Cleanliness Received for General Information Fare Service Category 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. Draft Final Report 67 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 4-5 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 "dominant" characteristics for each ridership group. Table 4-5 is therefore not representative of all riders utilizing the SLO Transit system, but should be considered a"snapshot"view of the typical 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, have been riding SLO Transit for less than two years, and are going to and from school. They tend to rate the transit service slightly lower than non-students. • Non-students tend to be older (25-59), are not affiliated with Cal Poly, have one or zero cars, make less than $35,000, and have either been riding SLO Transit for less than six months or more than five years. They tend to rate the transit service as excellent or very good in all categories. The seeming contradiction between students' and non-students' household incomes and car ownership is likely tied to supplemental income that students receive from their families, which allows them to own a vehicle. Table 4-5:Dominant Passenger Profiles of Students and Non-Students Student Non-Student -Sample Size 562 170 Passenger Profile Gender Male 51% Male 45% Female 49% Female 55% Age 19-24 25-59 Cal Poly Affiliation Student No Cal Poly Affiliation Household Income <$7,500 or$75,000+ <$35,000 Number of Cars in Household 3+ 0 or 1 Car Available for Trip Yes No Valid Driver's License Yes Yes Transit Use Characteristics Access Mode Walking Walking Transfening to Another Route No No Frequency of Transit Use 3+da /week 3+da week Length of Use <1 month—2 years <6 months or 5+years Fare Media Cal Poly ID Cash or SLO Transit Pass Trip Purpose School School,Work,Personal Business or Multi-Purpose Service Ratings Safety Performance Excellent or Very Good Excellent or Very Good Operator Courtesy Excellent or Very Good Excellent or Very Good On-Time Performance Good or Fair Excellent or Very Good Vehicle Cleanliness Excellent,Very Good,or Good Excellent or Very Good Value Received for Fare Excellent Excellent or Very Good Service in General Very Good Excellent or Very Good Service Information Very Good or Good Excellent or Very Good Draft Final Report 68 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Suggested Improvements Survey respondents were requested to suggest ways in which SLO Transit could improve on its service. Out of the pool of 776 respondents, 573 (74%) wrote in a suggestion for improvement. Of those who wrote in a suggestion, 57 (7%) said that service was good as it is. Other responses included: • Crowding — approximately 25% of riders cited crowding as a significant concern, particularly during peak periods on routes serving Cal Poly. Some respondents suggested purchasing larger buses, and others suggested increasing service frequency to help alleviate this problem. • On time performance — the most common response (24%) was that buses often leave early or arrive late for their scheduled stops. • Coordination with the Cal Poly class schedule — Cal Poly classes let out on the hour. Currently, all routes serving Cal Poly leave Mott Gym or the University Union by six minutes after the hour (some earlier), which does not provide adequate time for students to reach the bus stop after class. A few students also mentioned that buses do not arrive soon enough before class. • Span of service — many respondents requested that service start earlier in the morning in order to provide access to jobs and classes that start earlier than the current service schedule. Additionally, while the extended evening hours on Monday through Thursday are popular, many respondents requested that service run later on Fridays and weekends, as well as during the summer. • Friday service—Many respondents, particularly Cal Poly students who would use Routes 6a and 6b, requested that Friday service operate at the same frequency as weekday service. Additional suggestions included: • An increased number of bike racks available to passengers. • Working air conditioning on all buses. • Improved schedule information available online, including notification of service delays. • Up-to-date schedule information posted at bus stops. • Benches available at more bus stops. • Newer, low floor and/or alternative fuel vehicles. • Better coordination for transfers with SLORTA routes. • Smoother driving. • Improved customer service from drivers. Draft Final Report 69 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo 5. Peer System Analysis Introduction A peer system analysis was conducted as part of the San Luis Obispo Short Range Transit Plan. The analysis was structured to assess the City of San Luis Obispo's (SLO Transit) performance relative to a group of similarly-sized transit systems. The analysis focused on SLO Transit's performance relative to the peer systems in a series of indicators. This analysis is presented in three parts: • Peer Group Selection — describes the process used to select the transit systems that comprise the peer group. • Peer Group Analysis — presents the analysis of SLO Transit's fixed-route performance indicators and their performance relative to the peer group. • Conclusions—discusses the results of the analysis. Peer Group Selection The first step in the peer review was to develop a list of candidate systems to compare to SLO Transit. A list was developed of approximately 20 peer cities with similar characteristics to SLO Transit. All of the cities selected had transit systems that operated in small to medium size cities and had universities located within them. The 2006 National Transit Database (NTD) summary reports for fixed-route service(the last full year for which data is publicly available) were used to select the initial candidate systems. After developing the initial list, NTD data was collected in nine statistical categories to compare the candidate systems to SLO Transit to determine the final peer group for the analysis. The nine statistics included: • Operating Expenses • Fare Revenue • Total Vehicle Miles • Total Vehicle Hours • Vehicle Revenue Hours • Unlinked Passenger Trips • Service Area Population • Service Area Miles • Peak Vehicles Draft Final Report 70 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Agencies at the extreme ends of the range of performance were eliminated first; i.e. peer candidates with significantly higher or lower operating expenses, peak vehicles, service area populations or service areas than San Luis Obispo. In order to normalize the statistics for performance comparison, four performance indicators were calculated to aid the review. The indicators were: • Average Operating Speed (miles per hour, or MPH) • Per Capita Ridership • Total Miles per Peak Vehicle • Total Vehicle Hours to Revenue Vehicle Hours. The remaining candidates were then examined to find those agencies that most closely resembled SLO Transit. The next step was to establish limits to ensure that the agencies selected for the final peer group shared a similar degree of statistical characteristics with SLO Transit. For the purposes of the analysis it was determined that to be considered comparable, peer systems should have no more than approximately 30 fixed route vehicles in peak service, should be limited to a maximum service area of 50 to 60 square miles, and a service area population of less than 100,000. The candidate systems were then compared to SLO Transit by calculating the percentage difference between their indicators. To pare down the systems to the final peer group, the performance indicators were examined to find systems whose performance was within plus or minus 20 percent of SLO Transit's performance in at least two of the four indicators. After examining the candidate systems' indicator results, in combination with the raw NTD statistics for each agency, a final peer group of eight transit agencies was selected for the analysis. The results of the initial NTD peer selection and the resulting indicator comparison are shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. The final peer group shares similar performance characteristics with SLO Transit, either in similar averages in the performance indicators, or with similar statistical profiles of NTD data. The final peer group consists of • City of Greeley, Colorado • Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation, Indiana • St. Cloud Metropolitan Transit Commission, Minnesota • Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri • Las Cruces Area Transit,New Mexico • Charlottesville Transit Service, Virginia • Blacksburg Transit, Virginia • Eau Claire Transit, Wisconsin Draft Final Report 71 ® n O N r Q O N w w m N O Q tMCi N N N yam CN yW O O Q O O 10 c) O N O O O n n N M Cl N O n p p �- M Cl) M Q N O ,l'• M O O t0 O W M N W O O N n 10 n N N M `Q O CO CO 01 C Cl) CO N O O N O O CO O n W O U O N W Q N 01 CO CO N M N w , O W r W O W CL V V Q w w o O N N w n w N O N O cn O O d @ ^ •- •- M N r � y m �o aCD bO W N t0C T n M fO �O �O m 10 Q (p O n O M (y V m n N W ON 10 0) Q M a N N M N N 0 v� w W n N t0 r Q n w W ch O w W n Of W n Y@ o@ t7 W N M W M O M M Q N N Nd O & OO r N M fi C — WQ O W W n M W O n M Q C1 O O O W O ti n E N H O O N W n Q Q V M n 1n C n CO CO 10 Q Q M �- 4 Cl 7 a N Q N c'7 O N �- C N W O N O W O W W W W O O W O O n O W 1 O O W W n n Q n O W n M O O Q C W j V O M n O N Wa O W N N , O 0 t > oLd O Cl) W 100 CN7 N M N Q r N O co n N Q M R m r Q @ @>S r r r r N Q V S M. 7 O @ MO n Q O N 0 Q n M N W W O W W W y v U f0 n N 7 n u M 6@ O .0 O 10 W C) n O n O O O W W �- r N � O O w I ® = aa N C'1 N O h O N W O N 00 N N ��•• IA f0 C�ij it > O c1 W t0 M N M l0 co � N n N M sf n n Q � @S O H an W to n Cl) Q N O O O O W N O W W r O r- 0 N O 11'1 W W O W Q O M N N n O 7 •C N Lq N M Q W r W n N Q W c t0 N N N W W M 11 O O m Ol O M 11'1 n W O t0 O O O N O M � li7 M M n a0 O ^ O N O Q W O W N N M C n N O7 � D d a' j N 10 N < n c rn CO m 7 a t00 in O v P c011 !0 C%I o M n W r O t0 w (D O wW w Q o 0 w vi vi o W- n W W w w. Ci Q o N o w is @ W CO W n tf Q M O O O N N n N O Ow N O N Q Q n M iD N i0 n O 10 Cl) M n O M , 2c+l QQ w 10 N'1 M Ni 6 M W cN V9 M fA V� OA VA d! d! P9 dl fA fA 6% M fA eol fA OA S+ 1L C O w O 10 CO O W Q O W W N n N O Q N O W W C a N 00 A O n CO O n O n r M W co n V m 00 OD O Q N ; O It7 W N N O y� W n t0 OiQ N Oi co CO , OD O Cl) C. CO O t0 N 1- N c o O n rn 1r1 0) W m M fn M O W QQ DD w n @@ W O Q 0 M W Q t0 N � O O 10 r N � T � O r VJ O' eA u9 N» I.- 6% � a 01 M» � a F» 64 w w � 60 r vl d N F ¢ i g Z � v W c tm r O LL my U QLU c 0 m U C _Cal y O m 0 U L• E - p 0 0 c um= 2 ¢ v1 � U rn r > t IQ ¢ W �- ° c 8 g vain z ~ 4 CL n E ti m r F 0 ri ~ 5 n0. ° W ¢ E > L` ta 2 g x m c UW N UG' R. ¢ WC' U C`o W WA A oE N LL s > m e1 C OO O N c t 0 ct WW � .2 " w F1 Q o 0 0 0 0 o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 O O Q i 'NC r 1: 1-: fM l7 O f-) O O vi fM (Ni N a o t t� m n 7 O1 r m N a f0 r m O m M N N r 1n N Ci] L m ID O O O O O O O O O r O r O O O O O O O 61 O > O m y ,.�. l0 m x U` mi = x i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O ,.. m M 4 6 o 4 n c m N n n r o M c0 r o 0 1 D y vi cc a o N N ci <c o 00 of et o ai � iri c O N N N M ao r t7 c? l0 �p n � m Q b dl O O m 01 Q1 r r m n O r CD N m O m O 10 W O m O m O m m M M r m N O r O m Me Cl! m 01 (01 m a O � N m m 7 r m N m � � m O) ID tl r r Mn O M N M O V' t-- N r n R m N N w a t0 t O m M M M M M � Cl)M a N a tr Y m ID ID C.0 H a> e e o o e o 0 0 o e o e o o e o 0 PC 110 Q 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e 0 e 0 e o e o e CO N 10 01 C r T m 47 O) O M m M O a r C d W IA r !n N ? 01 m I[! R m r oM. w m M m C O C � F- M f? I� M M n n r O 1A tq n M r L O p 0 r O U d) a a G a T m M N OD 4 fV 6aD r f�+7 N pOC OC< t0 P,: 4 rZ r r r r N r W tll U m` `m a L y o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o e d E -- 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a � C M tD W Q) O) m 1 R M m r n O m N r C-4 0 fV M f0 v r fh M (O Cl) M c'7 r r fV v M y Q A a en n n m m V o to m x o n m o n gi r o N [� r a 10 Mv m m o co C a r R ? 0 10 N N N r N f7 fM f7 W N N lA r L m r �Qn ® OL m `� .. QOIM m co thN d R oLL L c �� ID ID U Q� m yO O NZ r -� itU E -dp d Z, CO p c `o E Z c o ^ 8 d > o O 0n c m d c c CO c`o Z v y U m o ff y o F Z 2 d z a o� m e O c `o E m = c ID cca , c U LL I-- Y ID L�o c yym U Q L H W N 7 T C « 0 4 m E y > i O H O * m d y > c 0 c �; d O c an d cm >: U H O w p m c Cor- m C Eo o m t c H m m Q m W i m cUJ U N LL A O F H d !/) "5 m C W m Z N a Q � rmcc cm vo cO c UO o xo o E oog t cc .4% m Z, x n Em mm 0 ca mUo 0 U m 0LL cim i °�' Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Peer Group Analysis The peer group analysis included a review of SLO Transit's performance relative to the peer systems in a number of indicators. The results of these analyses are discussed below. Seven operating statistics formed the basis of the performance indicator review. These statistics were obtained from the FY2006 NTD for both the peer systems and SLO Transit. Fixed route operating statistics were compared with eight other transit systems to evaluate SLO Transit's performance against its peers. The seven operating statistics included: • Operating Expenses • Fare Revenue • Total Vehicle Miles • Vehicle Revenue Miles • Total Vehicle Hours • Vehicle Revenue Hours • Unlinked Passenger Trips From these statistics, eight performance indicators were calculated. The indicators focused on cost efficiency, cost effectiveness, and passenger productivity. The performance indicators included the following: • Cost per Vehicle Mile • Cost per Vehicle Hour • Farebox Recovery Ratio • Passengers per Vehicle Revenue Hour • Passengers per Vehicle Revenue Mile • Cost per Passenger • Average Fare • Deficit per Passenger The analysis of statistics and indicators is presented in Table 5-3. The performance in each indicator is discussed below. Cost Efficiency Indicators Cost efficiency measures the cost to provide a unit of service. Two cost efficiency indicators were used in this peer analysis: • Cost per Vehicle Mile—with a cost per vehicle mile of$6.95, SLO Transit ranks last out of the nine peers; its cost per mile is approximately $1.50 higher than the peer average of $5.37. This is an important consideration given that the contract with the private sector operator to provide SLO Transit service is based on a per vehicle mile payment. Technical Chapter#5:Peer System Analysis 74 p m m N M A N N t Gp Cl) coN0 r p y" C N t0 r M O M N O N N N Cl) Q w W C9 69 C9 69 C9 to 69 69 69 ff9 N• H Q 03 0d 42 O r ` Cn (° M to y N In I, coO M N h O µm, O O O O � M N A R t0 N N a Y C M r 00 M CA R r N A !9 M t9 fA (9 69 E99 60 b09 � H � c m .L._ CO a n (0 a v m 69 v] C H N r r N � m o a Co v M to 0 t° O Cm 0 r co co V O N Cl) 0 0 N r r M A co r CND V co w r N co O 0 qT w j y N M 0 0 O •p m N t0 N M r N r M M A N CA 0) 0I r r M ? M E9 CA C9 f9 EA C9 CA Vi C9 ti L j M N A 0 N Cl) A A d m 69 N• > a m W ri p� Tl �C CMO ONO 000 N O l) co MMm m a N 1° OD t0 D CR V A N N t0 -w (J O 0 M 0 OO Co to 10 m U g N r CV r Ch 0 r r C`7 r N r fM r w p [ m 7 M N coMn N M r, r � C m m 4 u z 4 n� m h CD o m o m 0 0 m L m A ao 0 0 A . e to rn m OD A M dCi m j CA N Cb O A O (m r CD m V m W O 0 v m C6 6 t[) U C m t° ri CA A t0 C7 0 O t C j N r N N r M N Do u r m = o o v A o 0) rn c 0 w m m 0 m C 2 M Cr) CO M N M M A 0 W > o 0 Cn 03 > M n 8 a a� Y l' h O r 0 0 N r O CO o 0 o e o 0 o e o e o p yO, m $ y U r N N 0 M 0 M AK Z+ M M M vCO O N N LL') qe y a m w CCI N O N 0 N 0 O a0 m p A 0 r r M A O < th A I': M CD A A w M r O O N Cm > .—, r N r OD r C° r N 0 .fl > — M M 0 O N V m 0 0 ` O m C m g r m C D LL V ~ r m N CA M Cn 0 m cn 0 Q 1W � 1Np �j n r co M 0 N N 'jam. C O cooco N co CD N Co V r a m m 0 Lo N 00 0 N 0 N to M CO O N v A 0 0 N p_S A CO 0 V A 0 M w 0 cw Vj m N T OA 0 N t0 ,C m EA fA C9 C9 C9 C9 C9 V9 C9 f9 a 69 C9 f9 C9 CA r C9 O R m y > V W M r 0 A A N O y 0 O M r A 0 0 0 u7 O M N A M r O A A O O 01 y CP m Cm O v O to 0 N N Cl) mm m 0? A N O O N Co CO m r Qr �' c O 00) tW) N O O ON1 tAp N a 69 64 d09 0M te 6 M(0 69 6t°9 M 0 C 0 w Co N r to r CA OD m 69 69 = CL O Ll NM � � u9 M H MtA U m i > F O z i d c o F g oO E yo O N t0 2 y m U E - m U E - m E E c z V m > o > m E E = a to n t .� m a 2 v a g m S Z 4 U $' m CO ? m V m (aa Z m m m F W c co a `mm a ° ` c . m a a d a m N o O o F W p m O o > c O U a o ] CD F c c 2 U 3 OL m CL m m m 0 3 _m d b s m m E A i C m o 2 W m .s D N C m p 2 m N > L 'a) Q m m in m m :3 t > m co m m L' d U yCO U° O ' m m ° E o° o p m LO m Co A O U U m co U m Lu y U U m y 2 J U CO W Q Q • Cost per Vehicle Hour— SLO Transit's cost per vehicle hour of$76:56 ranks fifth out of the nine peers. SLO Transit's cost per hour is over $10 higher than the peer average of $65.37. Passenger Productivity Indicators Passenger productivity measures the amount of service consumed per unit of service provided. Two indicators of passenger productivity were used in this peer analysis: • Passengers per Revenue Hour— in this measure of passenger productivity, SLO Transit performs well, ranking third among the peer group. SLO Transit carries 29.7 passengers. per revenue hour, about five passengers per hour higher than the peer average of 24.8. • Passengers Per Revenue Mile SLO Transit carries 2.4 passengers per revenue mile, which is slightly higher than the 2.2 peer group average, and ranks fourth in the peer group. Cost Effectiveness Cost effectiveness measures both how well resources are utilized to produce trips and how much of the cost of those trips is covered by fare revenue. Four indicators of cost effectiveness were used in this peer analysis: • Cost per Passenger— SLO Transit ranks fourth among the peer group in this measure of cost effectiveness. SLO Transit's cost per passenger was $2.71, which is $0.35 lower than the peer average of$3.06. • Farebox Recovery Ratio SLO Transit is average in terms of farebox recovery percentage. SLO Transit's farebox recovery of 17.4 percent is the fourth highest among the peer group, but below the 27.4 percent peer average. The peer average for this indicator was somewhat skewed by the 83.4 percent and 64.2 percent recovery ratios achieved by Missouri State University and Blacksburg Transit of Virginia, which were four and three times higher, respectively, than the third highest agency. • Average Fare — SLO Transit's average fare is $0.47, below the peer group average fare of$0.55. SLO Transit ranks fourth of the nine peers in this indicator. It should be noted that Cal Poly students' fares are pre-paid and that they may board a bus simply by showing their student identification; because of this, the average fare for SLO Transit may also be somewhat skewed. • Deficit per Passenger— SLO Transit has the fourth lowest deficit per passenger among the peer group at $2.24 per passenger. The peer average is $2.51 per passenger.. SLO Transit exhibits average performance relative to the peer systems. In most of the indicators SLO Transit is ranked either fourth or fifth of nine peers in performance. SLO Transit performs Draft Final Report 76 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo best in terms of passenger productivity (passengers per hour), ranking third among the peers. In terms of cost efficiency, SLO Transit's performance did not fare as well — ranking last of nine peers in cost per vehicle mile and fifth in cost per vehicle hour. Conclusions SLO Transit's performance as measured against its peers can best be described as average. SLO Transit consistently settled in the middle of the pack in most of the performance indicators, ranking either fourth or fifth in six of the eight indicators used for the analysis. SLO Transit performed best in the area of passenger productivity, ranking third in passengers per vehicle revenue hour and fourth in passengers per vehicle revenue mile. SLO Transit's performance was above the peer average in both passenger productivity categories, suggesting that SLO Transit is doing a good job in meeting the transit needs of the community. SLO Transit did not perform as well in terms of cost efficiency. SLO Transit's cost per vehicle mile of$6.95 ranked last in the peer group. As was previously mentioned, this is an important consideration given that the contract with the private sector operator to provide SLO Transit service is based on a per vehicle mile payment.. SLO Transit did better in the cost per vehicle hour indicator, ranking fifth of nine peers at $76.56 per hour, but well above the peer average of$65.37 per hour. SLO Transit's performance in terms of cost effectiveness was mixed. SLO Transit ranked fourth with a cost per passenger of$2.71, slightly better than the peer average of$3.06. SLO Transit's deficit per passenger of$2.24 was better than the peer average of$2.51; however, SLO Transit's average fare of$0.47 was below the peer average of$0.55. As was also previously mentioned, the average fare for SLO Transit may be somewhat skewed because Cal Poly students' fares are pre-paid and that they may board a bus simply by showing their student identification. Farebox recovery was also below the peer average, but as noted earlier, the average was skewed by two systems with extraordinarily high farebox recovery ratios. If those two systems are removed from the analysis, SLO Transit would have the second highest farebox recovery among the rest of the group. Overall, SLO Transit ranked fourth among the peers in all of the cost efficiency indicators. Draft Final Report 77 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo 6. Service Evaluation, Issues, and Opportunities Introduction Previous chapters provided an overview of the environment and operations of SLO Transit and the public outreach process. This chapter presents an analysis and evaluation of SLO Transit, identifying the issues, strengths, and weaknesses of each route. This chapter is divided into three parts —performance evaluation, route diagnostics, and a conclusions section. Performance Evaluation Evaluating the SLO Transit system against a set of service standards or goals is the first step in the evaluation process. The process allows one to deal with a variety of issues related to the quality and quantity of bus service. This section presents proposed service standards and lists SLO Transit's performance for each standard. This provides initial guidance for the development of service strategies. It should be noted that viewing any system with regard to a set of standards or goals requires an understanding of local conditions as well as the trade-offs associated with providing service. As an example, in some cases, it will be acceptable to be below the target; e.g., while it is desirable to provide 30-minute peak service on all routes, doing so on routes in less productive areas might mean not meeting the standards for fiscal condition. The analysis discusses these issues and the competing requirements of providing extensive coverage and frequent service while meeting the need to maintain cost effectiveness. It will identify where standards should be met and where standards should be used as goals for SLO Transit to use in planning future service changes. Table 6-1 provides a summary of the proposed standards/goals, and the results for SLO Transit based on the data collected for this project, which is discussed below. The performance evaluation is based on weekday operations. Draft Final Report 78 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 6.1:Proposed Service Standards �� Gategoryf ik'7 ^Stan`tlard�at,=w ,max s, :b�-,gk,�c.. ii...�'�afi�.!i1<�7:5'�.':.:�s.�k•_�1...:..i.x���P.:...oe��i....,`�>L.�..�'u�.6`iS Service Coverage • Residential areas -90%of population within %,mile of a bus route -Route spacing guide presented in Table 5-2 • Major activity centers Availability -employers or employment concentrations of 200 or more employees -health centers -middle and high schools -colleges/universities -shopping centers of over 25 stores or 100,000 square feet of leased retail space -social service/government centers Frequency -30 minute peak -60 minute off-peak Span -5 AM to 10 PM on weekdays -6 AM to 7 PM on weekends Directness -Maximum.25%of transfer rate Patron Convenience Speed -Regular routes maximum of 15 MPH -Loading -25%standees for short periods acceptable Bus Stop Spacing -5 to 7 blocks per mile in core(every other block) -Fringe 4 to 5 per mile,as needed based on land uses -No missed trips Dependability -95%on-time service(0 to 5 minutes late) -No trips leaving earl Road Call Ratio -4,000 to 6,000 miles per road call Fiscal Condition Fare Structure -Qualitative criteria Fareboz Recovery -Significantly alter routes less than 60%of peer group average(27.4%is average) -Review and modify routes between 60%and 80%peer group!vera e Productivity -Significantly alter routes less than 60%of peer group average(2.2 passengers per (Passengers/Mile) mile and 24.8 passengers per hour) (Passengers/Hour) -Review and modify routes between 60%and 80%peer group average Cost Effectiveness and alter routes more than 140%of peer Efficiency -Significantly p group average($3.06 per (Cost per Passenger and Cost passenger)or system average er eak vehicle -Review and modify routes between 120%and 140%average Passenger Comfort Wai!jEg Shelters -25 or more boardin s Bus Stop Signs. -Denote SLO Transit,contact information,and route Revenue Equipment -Clean and good condition Public Information -Timetable,maps,advertising Draft Final Report 79 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Service Coverage This broad category covers standards for availability, frequency, span, and directness. Availability One of the key decisions in providing transit is determining where service should be provided and the spacing of bus routes. Service coverage and congruency analyses provide a baseline evaluation of SLO Transit service availability. Service coverage analysis looks at SLO Transit routes and their relationship to areas of high population density and poverty status and service congruency analysis looks at SLO Transit routes and their relationship to the locations of major trip generators. This standard is divided into two separate components that reflect travel concentrations, trip purpose, and the need for bus service. Availability standards are developed for the residential trip end that produces travel and the non-home end that attracts travel. A description of each of these two is provided below: o Production End (Coverage) — Determination of which residential neighborhoods should be candidates for service is a function of reasonable walking distance. Numerous studies have indicated that the maximum distance an average person can reside from a bus route and still be considered to `have service' is one-quarter mile, which is approximately equivalent to a five-minute walk. However, this rule of thumb must be coupled with a surrogate for income and mobility, as well as population density. Route spacing and existing service coverage are discussed in the following sections. o Attraction End(Congruency) — Activity centers deserve transit service if they are large enough to attract an adequate number of transit trips. To assist in this determination, `threshold levels' have been established for different categories of activity centers. These threshold levels, which are based on past experience and judgment, should serve as guidelines in determining which activity centers in each category should be given consideration for service. It should be noted that other factors, such as proximity of the center to existing bus routes, should be considered before providing new service to a major activity center. o Employers — Employers or concentrations of employers, such as in business or industrial parks, with 200 or more employees are large enough to generate transit ridership. o Health Centers—Institutions consisting of hospitals, clinics, rehabilitation centers, and mental health centers, and nursing homes are significant destinations that should have access to transit services. o Educational Facilities — Colleges, universities, vocational schools, and secondary schools have been included in the availability standard. Those Draft Final Report 80 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo institutions with enrollment of at least 1,000 full-time students warrant consideration for service. All middle and high schools also warrant consideration. o Shopping Centers — Shopping trips constitute a key reason for transit travel. Shopping centers (including malls and major plazas) with at least 25 stores or more than 100,000 square feet of leased retail space are large enough to warrant consideration for service, as well as the CBD, neighborhood business districts, or any other significant commercial attractions. o Social Service/Government Centers — Public agencies, government centers, community facilities, and recreational complexes attract some volume of traffic. Since the nature and size of these facilities varies greatly, no numerical threshold will be set. Judgment, as well as trip purposes and characteristics of the users (e.g., elderly and low income citizens) should be considered when deciding whether to serve such a facility. Route Spacing Table 6-2 lists the recommended route spacing guide given an area's population density and percentage of households without automobiles, which are the surrogates for income and transit dependency. Areas with low population density and low transit dependence given the number of cars available have lower requirements for transit service than do areas with high population density and greater transit dependence. Table 6-2:Route Spacing Guide %of Households Population Density(Persons Per Square Mile) mahout Over 4,500 to 2,500 to Under Automobiles 6,400 6,400 4,449 2,500 Over 15.0 /4 mile '/4 mile 3/8 mile '/z mile 10.0-15.0 1/4 mile 3/8 mile 1/�mile 1 mile or azatransit 5.0-9.9 3/8 mile y,mile 1 mile or , azatransit Below 5.0 '/z mile 1 mile or aratransit Figure 6-1 applies these route spacing standards to San Luis Obispo's population and SLO Transit's route structure. Recommended route spacing generally produces a pattern of rings of increasing distance necessary between transit routes as one travels farther away from downtown. Draft Final Report 81 f� r — w a — I � a 00 u `� $ Cd Qo, ao cc i -�-- � � i �pppggq��� I ✓--� f\_ ala r j; el 01 y .r r c x0 o m v s ao� bA d IZ a A The route spacing guide is just that—a guide. It is not'an exact measurement. In some areas, the street pattern is not uniform or the trip generators are further apart than the guide indicates. SLO Transit bus service should not conform to the guide in all areas. Service should, however, meet the intent of the guide— areas with more people and/or fewer cars need more transit service than sparsely populated or relatively affluent areas. Other considerations for warranting service are concentrations of elderly and disabled populations as well as multifamily housing developments. These socioeconomic characteristics are included in the transit score analysis, which is also the base map for the coverage analysis. Overall, SLO Transit meets the intent of the route spacing guide. Coverage Service coverage and congruency analyses ate used to evaluate the existing SLO Transit fixed route system. These analyses provide the opportunity to identify unserved populations and unserved destinations in the SLO Transit service area that have potential for transit success. Service coverage compares the SLO Transit fixed route system to the underlying demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the region's population, while service congruency compares the SLO Transit fixed route system to major transit generators in the region. Major employers in the region and their locations relative to SLO Transit fixed routes are also addressed in the congruency analysis. Service coverage analysis looks at the SLO Transit system in comparison to the distribution of the population density in the region to see if any areas are currently unserved. Figure 6-2 is a map of population density along with SLO Transit routes and their coverage region (1/4 mile buffer). In general, SLO Transit's routes provide good coverage throughout the city with very few unserved.areas. Congruency The congruency analysis looks at the SLO Transit fixed route servicearea (the area within a quarter mile of fixed routes) in comparison to the location of major trip generators in the City of San Luis Obispo. Major trip generators include: hospitals, shopping centers, major employers, government offices, schools, colleges and universities, and cultural and entertainment centers. Figure 6-3 provides a map of SLO Transit's service congruency. SLO Transit fixed routes currently serve the vast majority of major employers and trip generators in the overall service area. Major trip generators currently not served by SLO Transit include major employers south of Tank Farm Road however many of these employers are served by the RTA. Draft Final Report 83 ........:.... ...... . .. ............ ............. I ........ ............. � iii:�i ........... . ....:::::.:.. ................:.. I ... I 7 00 CD Lv U ....... . (�........ ::.�F iI Ix O ElSF.iiiiiiiiS:: % •':��C i.,.. •pF�ii:'o'.0°�E•.ir^ `lyl, rA 1 ._.... ......... ........... .....__. la _ � it` �0�a •i7 y d 9 i s mu' E ,� 8 g o; f Q fi CK O Q �L Q i Q C _ r .. ........:.... ......... ....... .....:::::::::::::.:... .... ........ ....... .... ....... . ... ..... ........ . .. ..::: ... .......... JIs ............ 00 -: i' to ..... .. .. .:•.''' :ii t .................... .....:::::::::.:...::::iii .... 4 ... O .. 1 C ........ ......... _ ......... ......... ^1 ... .... .. _ ,,�� ....... ...... it.i'... ................ „s y a a ti T a � ��4 i • � e g � r S c 8 ` Q � S U ®® � ••��• gl i I I , I I I OO 0 0 0 a fi iz a A Frequency For a city of San Luis Obispo's size, the goal for headway/frequency for arterial routes is 30 minutes during weekday peak periods, and 60 minutes during off-peak periods and on Saturdays. These standards and guidelines for headways have to be balanced against the resources of the system and utilization of the routes. Routes that provide service to the Cal Poly campus provide 30 minute service all day during the school year. On weekends, these routes operate hourly service. Routes 2 and 3 provide service every 40 minutes on both weekdays and weekends. Route 1 provides service every hour on weekdays, with no weekend service. The Trolley, which operates only on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, operates roughly every 15 to 20 minutes. SLO Transit, in the aggregate, satisfies the frequency standard, but some improvement could be made on routes not serving Cal Poly. Span In cities of San Luis Obispo's size, evening service is becoming more and more of a necessity. This is because of the presence of a major university with night classes, as well as access to entertainment opportunities at night. The duration of service needs to consider both need/demand and the availability of funds. The minimum standard for SLO Transit for regular route service should be 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM (17 hours) on weekdays, and 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM (13 hours) on Saturdays. On weekdays SLO Transit bus service runs from 6:03 AM until 10:44 PM. On Saturdays service operates from 8:03 AM until 6:17 PM. All SLO Transit routes begin service after 6:00 AM; however Routes 2 and 3 begin service immediately after 6:00 AM (6:03 AM and 6:04 AM). Routes 4 and 5 begin service around 6:30 AM, while Route 1 begins service at 6:53 AM. Routes 6a and 6b begin service around 7:00 AM. Evening service is provided along Routes 2, 3, 4, 6a, and 6b with the last trips on these routes finishing between 10:02 PM and 10:34 PM. SLO Transit operates 16.5 hours of weekday service, and generally meets the intent of the span of service standard, although service could operate earlier all days, as well as later on Fridays. Directness The identified standard for directness for this system is the percentage of transfers being made by bus riders. For a system with radial routes, the rate of transferring is usually high, and a standard of 25 percent (transfer trips/revenue trips) is the maximum rate for transferring. SLO Transit does meet the standard for transferring passengers. Draft Final Report 86 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Patron Convenience This category includes standards for operating speed, loading, bus stop spacing, dependability, and road call ratio. OperatingSpeed Deed There are a set of standards associated with the operating speed of the routes. These standards allow for the identification of routes that may be too long for the running time allotted,or may be running slowly and unreliably due to congestion. As such they are also indicators of safety, as routes that are too long require drivers to speed to keep on schedule; and reliability, since very slow routes may create problems with on-time performance and transfers, particularly in a system with radial routes. The standards shown in Table 5-1 dictate that regular routes should not exceed 15 MPH. Table 6-3 lists average operating speed by route. The SLO Transit system as a whole averages an 11.13 MPH operating speed. All routes meet the regular route standard as their average operating speed does not exceed 15 MPH. Routes 1, 2, 6a, 6b, and the Trolley speeds are below the average system speed. Table 6-3:SLO Transit Average Operating Speed by Route Route Average Speed (Mph) Route 1 Broad/Johnson/University Square 10.06 Route 2 South Higuera/Suburban 10.96 Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Marigold 12.21 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 12.62 Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 12.98 Route 6a Cal Poly/flighland 8.96 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 7.16 TroUey 9.33 Average 11.13 Source of Data:SLO Transit route statistics LOadm¢ Passengers should be seated except for short periods of time associated with peak load periods, during which time there should be no more than 25% standees for only a limited duration. At the same time, while there is no minimum load factor in the standards (i.e., a standard which states that loads should not fall below a given number of riders) observations of the ridership by trip indicate that peak loads rarely fall below 10 passengers on some routes, while routes that serve Cal Poly tend to have overcrowded conditions when they arrive on campus during periods right before classes start. Therefore, although overcrowded conditions exist on routes serving Cal Poly during peak class times, the SLO Transit system as a whole satisfies the loading standard. Draft Final Report 87 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Bus Stop Spacing The spacing of stops should balance patron convenience and speed of operation. The core standard calls for a stop every other block, while in fringe areas stops can be as far apart as .2 to .25 miles (4 to 5 per mile), based on need. In the aggregate, SLO Transit satisfies the intent of the bus stop spacing. Dependability Riders require dependable service, defined as service that arrives on time and gets them to their destination on time, particularly if they are going to work, to school, or to an appointment. The standard should be two-fold: 100% of all trips should be operated (ie., no missed trips), and 95% of the trips should run on-time (i.e., not more than 5 minutes late). Finally, no trip should run ahead of schedule at any point along a route. Table 6-4 shows how each SLO Transit route performed in terms of punctuality. No on-time performance data is available for the Trolley, as it operates continually with no set schedule. The SLO Transit system as a whole averaged only 87% on-time performance, well below the standard of 95%. Only Route 2 achieves a 95% on- time performance. Route 3 is on-tune only 75% of the time. On-time performance impacts the ability for passengers to transfer between routes and connect to RTA services. Table 6-4: SLO Transit On-Time Performance Route %On-Time Route 1 Broad,Johnson/Highland 92% Route 2 South Higuera/Suburban 96% Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Marigold 75% Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 93% Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 81% Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 89% Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 85% Average 87% Source:Ridecheck Survey Road Call Ratio This is a measure of dependability and quality for the customer, as the fewer the road calls, the fewer times customers are inconvenienced. The standard for road calls is between 4,000 and 6,000 miles per road call. For fiscal year 2006, SLO Transit operated 355,970 miles and had 53 failures,resulting in a road call ratio of 6,716 miles per call. SLO Transit performs very well in this arena and exceeds the road call ratio standard. Draft Final Report 88 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Fiscal Condition These standards assess financial situation, the use of the SLO Transit system, and the relationship of service used to the amount of service provided. While there are any number of possible criteria that can be used to define fiscal condition, many of which will be studied in detail in the route diagnostics, four were selected for the purpose of defining general standards and overall condition: fare structure, farebox recovery, productivity, and cost effectiveness and efficiency. Fare Structure The fare structure should meet qualitative considerations set by City policy. It should be simple to understand, offer convenience to the user, and generate reasonable revenues for the system. With regard to equity issues, the fare policy offers a number of discounts based either upon age, income, or disability, or upon the use of a variety of media. Free transfers should be provided so that those needing to use two buses for a trip are not penalized. SLO Transit has a very simple fare policy. The base cash fare is $1.00 with a$0.50 reduced fare for elderly and disabled patrons. There are unlimited-ride pass options and transfers between routes are free. Cal Poly students pay no fare, however, Cal Poly provides funding to SLO Transit for this privelage. Systemwide, fares generate approximately 25% of operating costs. Therefore, SLO Transit meets the qualitative criteria that set the standard for fare structure. The following two standards (farebox recovery and productivity) for individual routes relate to how routes compare against the system average. Deviations from the standard identify routes that require different levels of analysis and change. Routes achieving less than 60% of the peer group average should be studied and significantly altered. Routes falling between 60% and 80% of the peer group average need to be carefully reviewed and possibly modified. Finally, routes that exceed 80% of the peer groupm average, particularly those which might exceed the average itself, may need adjustments as well increased service. Farebox Recovery Farebox recovery measures the percent of operating cost covered by fares and is an outcome heavily influenced by the ridership productivity of a route against its total operating cost, as well as the fare policy of the system It is calculated by dividing fare revenue by operating cost, and is also discussed in the route diagnostic section. System-wide, SLO Transit averages 25% farebox recovery on weekdays. Two routes have recovery ratios below 60% of the peer group average— Routes 1 and 2. Route 3 and the Trolley have farebox recoveries between 60% and 80% of the peer group average. Route level farebox recovery was calculated based on an average fare per passenger and the daily ridership as calculated by the survey. Draft Final Report S9 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Productivity Similar to farebox recovery, this route-by-route standard relates individual route performance to the performance of the system as a whole. Productivity is measured in passengers per mile and in passengers per hour for this report. SLO Transit averages 3.92 passengers per mile system-wide while the peer average is 2.2 passengers per mile. None of the routes fall below 60% of the peer average. Routes 4, 5, 6a, and 6b exceed the peer average. Route 2 falls between 60% and 80%of the peer average. SLO Transit averages 43.64 system-wide per hour while the peer average is 24.8. Again no routes fall below 60% of the system, while two routes fall between 60% and 80% of the system average—Routes I and 2. Routes 3, 4, 5, 6a, and 6b all exceed the system average. Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency For the purposes of this section, cost effectiveness will be measured in cost per passenger and cost per peak vehicle, each on a per-route basis. In terms of cost per passenger, the system-wide average for SLO Transit is $1.82 while the peer average is $3.06. None of the routes fall below 60% of the system-wide average and one route, Route 2, falls between 60% and 80% of the system-wide average. Five routes, Routes 4, 5, and 6a, 6b, and the Trolley perform better than the peer average. In terms of cost per peak vehicle, Routes 3 and 4 were the highest, and Route 6b and the Trolley were the lowest. Cost per peak vehicle by route is shown below in Table 6-5. Table 6-5: Cost per Peak Vehicle by Route Route Cost per Peak Vehicle Route 1 Broad,Johnson/lEghIand $810.81 Route 2 South Iii era/Suburban $1,118.98 Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Marigold $1,266.27 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna $1,246.61 Lake/Cal Poly Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna $1,190.12 Lake/Madonna Route 6a Cal Poly/lEghland $832.26 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown $669.24 Trolley $336.80 Average $933.89 Revenue Hours per Full Time Equivalent According to the January 2005 version of the Transportation Development Act's "Statutes and California Codes of Regulations", "2,000 person-hours of work in one year constitute[s] one employee". SLO Transit's system-wide revenue hours per full time employee is 1,999.77, exactly meeting the standard. Draft Final Report 90 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Passenger Comfort Passenger comfort standards pertain to the passenger environment that SLO Transit provides. These standards examine the placement and condition of shelters and bus stop signs, the comfort and condition of the revenue equipment, and the quality of public information. Waiting The recommended standard for waiting shelters for a system of this size is to place one at any location having 25 or more daily hoardings, generally spread throughout the day (e.g., not 25 boardings for a single trip and no boardings for the remaining part of the day). Table 6-6 shows SLO Transit stop locations with total daily boardings of 25 or more. Draft Final Report 91 C Table 6-6:Stop Locations with 25 or More Boardings Stop Location Route Boardings Cal Poly Mott Gym 4,6a, 6b 936 Downtown Transit Center 1,2,3,4,5,6b 764 Cal Poly Union 5 764 Ramona at Palomar 4,6a 240 Cal Poly Ag Science 6a 209 Cal Poly Graphic Arts 5,6b 205 Grand at Abbott 5 204 Ramona at Tassa ara 4,6a 97 Mill at Grand 5 91 Los Osos Valley Road at Laguna Village 4 89 NO at Johnson 5,6b 86 Los Osos Valley Road at Madonna 4,5 84 La Entrada at Del Norte 4,6a 74 Mill at California 5,6b 74 Los Osos Valley Road at LagunaLane 4 69 lEghland at Cuesta 1,6a 67 Foothill at Chorro 4,6a 65 Los Osos Valley Road at Descanso 4 56 Los Osos Valley Road at Oceanaire 4 56 Cal Poly Graphic Arts 4,6a 53 Cal Poly Mustang Stadium 5 46 Santa Barbara at Church 5 45 Orcutt at Laurel 1,3 44 Mill at Santa Rosa 4,6b 42 Prado Day Center 2 42 Santa Rosa at Buchon 5 39 Madonna Plaza Promenade 4,5 38 Cal Poly Vista Grande 4,6b 34 Patricia at Foothill 1,6a 34 Casa at Murray6a 31 South at Parker(Greyhound) 5 31 Hi land at Mount Bishop 6a 28 Santa Rosa at Leff 5 28 Amtrak Station 5 27 Madonna Road at Madonna Plaza 4, 5 27 Patricia at Highland 6a 26 Foothill at University Square 5 25 Madonna at Oceanaire 5 25 SLO Transit should review each of these stop locations for potential shelter construction. Presently, the system does not satisfy this service standard. Drafi Final Report 92 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Bus Stop Signs The standard for bus stop signs is to denote the name of the system and the route/routes served, as well as to provide a telephone number for schedule information. Where available, SLO Transit bus stop signs generally do have route numbers and destinations.. Revenue Equipment General examination of the buses' condition and cleanliness indicates that the buses are clean and in good working order. Seven of the 16 buses on the property are older than the FTA guideline of 12 years old, including a number of buses that date back to 1982 and 1984. SLO Transit continues to take delivery of new transit vehicles to replace the older transit vehicles. Public Information Public information including timetables, maps and advertising should be widely available and be easy to read and understand. The system map is available online, and is distributed in hard copy. The public information is clear and easy to read, however the bus stops shown on the map are out of date. Overall, SLO Transit meets the public information standard. Summary Overall, SLO Transit provides service to those people who need it and to those destinations that warrant it, with a network that provides coverage throughout most of the city. Service is needed earlier in the morning, but evening service does meet the standards outlined. Service frequency is an area where some improvement could be made, particularly on routes not serving Cal Poly. SLO Transit buses operate at an acceptable speed. Crowding is an issue on many of the Cal Poly routes during time periods right before classes begin. Buses are in good working condition, although many of them are beyond their useful lifespan. Bus stops are conveniently located for passengers. A major convenience issue for SLO Transit is the on-time performance of its operation. Only one of SLO Transit's routes meets the standard for on-time performance. SLO Transit is lacking in bus shelters for patron comfort. Shelters are needed at bus stops that have 25 or more boardings per day. Bus stop signs are adequate; they contain route and destination information. Other public information, however, like the timetables, is widely available and generally easy to read and understand. This comparison to industry service standards has identified several places where SLO Transit excels and several places where SLO Transit could improve. These indications are studied in more detail in subsequent sections of this chapter,which deal with individual route performance. Draft Final Report 93 C Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Weekday Route Diagnostics Five important data sets were collected or calculated from SLO Transit passenger counts, operator schedules, and National Transit Database information from 2006 to create the database and calculations for the route diagnostics: ridership statistics, revenue hours, revenue miles, operating cost,and farebox revenue. Route diagnostics are split between the 7 regular routes and the Trolley. These statistical data are shown in Table 6-7. SLO Transit averages 5,451 passengers on the typical weekday when Cal Poly is in session, while operating 1,254 hours of service and 1,390 miles of service. Daily operations accumulate close to $10,000 in costs. Nearly$2,600 of these operating costs are recouped through daily farebox revenue. Table 6-7:2006 Weekday Route Level Ridership,Operating Data,Cost and Revenue Estimates Average Daily Daily Daily Average Route Daily Revenue Revenue Operating Daily Ridership Hours Miles Cost Fareboz Revenue Route 1 Broad,Johnson/Highland 214 11.27 113.40 $810.81 $100.58 Route 2 South lE era/Suburban 257 14.28 156.50 $1,118.98 $120.79 Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Marigold 383 14.50 177.10 $1,266.27 $180.01 Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 1,438 27.64 348.70 $2,493.21 $675.86 Route 5 Cal Poly/La Lake/Madonna 1,495 25.64 332.90 $2,380.24 $702.65 Route 6a Cal Poly/lEghland 699 12.99 116.40 $832.26 $328.53 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 801 13.08 93.60 $669.24 $376.47 TroUey 164 5.50 51.30 $366.80 $77.08 Average 5,451 124.90 1,389.9 $9,937.79 $2,561.97 For each of the diagnostic indicators, each route is ranked compared to the other routes in the system and also compared to the system average. Performance by route is shown in both table and chart format for each indicator. Routes that are less than 60% of the system average may require substantial modification or possibly elimination. Routes that are between 60% and 80% of the system average need to be looked at in further detail to determine if small modifications are necessary. Service Effectiveness Service effectiveness describes the amount of service utilized per unit of transit service provided. Service effectiveness is measured based on two indicators, passengers per mile and passengers per hour. While both passengers per mile and passengers per hour are presented, only passengers per mile is included in the route scoring and ranking presented at the end of the route diagnostics section to avoid duplication. Draft Final Report 94 C Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Passengers per Mile The passenger per mile figures and rankings are presented in Table 6-8 and Figure 6-4 for weekdays based on data collected for the survey. This indicator measures the number of passengers carried each day by each route versus the number of miles per day the route operates. SLO Transit averages 3.92 passengers per mile system-wide. Three of the 7 regular routes operate below the average and four operate above. Route 6b has the highest passengers per mile, with 8.56 passengers per mile on average daily. On the other end of the scale, Route 2 has only 1.64 passengers per mile daily, on average. The Trolley is a mid-level performer; however it is less than the system average at 3.20 passengers per mile. Table 6-8:SLO Transit Weekday Passengers per Mile by Route Weekday Weekday %of Route Passengers Peer per Mile ink Average Route 1 Broad,Johnson/Eghland 1.89 7 85.78% Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 1.64 8 74.64% Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Mari old 2.16 6 98.30% Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 4.12 4 187.45% Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 4.49 3 204.13% Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 6.01 2 272.96% Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 8.56 1 388.99% Trolley 3.20 5 145.31% Peer Average 2.2 Figure 6-4:Weekday Passengers per Mile by Route with Peer Average 9.00 ti Passengers per Mile 8.00 — — Average 7.00-- 6.00. 5.00-- 4.00 3.00- 2.00- — — — — —1.00- 0.00A. 0.00 Route 5 Route 4 Route 3 Route 2 Route 1 Trolley Route 6A Route 6B Draft Final Report 95 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Passengers per Hour The passengers per hour figures, which include rankings, are presented for SLO Transit in Table 6-9 and Figure 6-5. This indicator measures the number of passengers carried each day by each route versus the number of hours per day the route operates. SLO Transit averages 43.64 passengers per hour system-wide. As with the other measure of service effectiveness, passengers per mile, Route 6b is the most effective (61.24 passengers per hour) and Route 2 is the least effective (18.00 passengers per hour) route. Three of the regular routes operate below the system average and four operate above. The Trolley operates below the system average at 29.82 passengers per hour. Table 6-9:SLO Transit Weekday Passengers per Hour by Route Weekday Weekday %of Route Passengers Rank Peer per Hour Average Route 1 Broad,Johnson/Highland 18.99 7 76.57% Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 18.00 8 72.57% Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Marigold 26.41 6 106.51% Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 52.03 4 209.78% Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 58.31 2 235.11% Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 53.81 3 216.98% Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 61.24 1 246.93% Trolley29.82 5 120.23% Peer Average 24.8 Figure 6-5:Weekday Passengers per Hour by Route with Peer Average 70.00 Passengers per Hour 60.00 17— Average 50.00 40.00- 30.00-- 20.00- 10.00- 0.00 0.0030.0020.0010.000.00 Route 5 Route 4 Route 3 Route 2 Route 1 Trolley Route 6A Route 6B Draft Final Report 96 • Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Financial Efficiency Financial efficiency measures the cost of providing transit service per unit of service provided. Two indicators, cost per mile and cost per hour, can be used to determine financial efficiency. Since SLO Transit pays for service on a fixed cost-per-mile basis, the daily operating cost was determined using an average cost-per-mile figure for the system as a whole and not for each individual route; only the cost-per-hour indicator varies from route to route in this analysis and is presented for the review of financial efficiency. Cost per hour fluctuates because different routes operate a different number of miles in a given hour. Cost per Hour Table 6-10 and Figure 6-6 present the cost per hour for each route and the route rankings. This indicator presents the total daily route cost per revenue hour operated, and is an indicator of how well resources are being used to produce a unit of service. SLO Transit averages $71.39 in cost per hour operated, based on the triennial performance audit. Four of the 7 regular routes are more efficient than the system average and three are less so. Route 6b is the most efficient route at $51.17 per hour and Route 5 is the least efficient route at $92.83 per hour. The Trolley is more efficient than the system average at $66.69 in operating cost per hour. Table 6-10:SLO Transit Cost per Hour by Route Weekday % of Weekday Route Cost per Rank System Hour Average Route I Broad,Johnson/Highland $71.94 4 100.77% Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban $78.36 5 1 109.76% Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Marigold $87.33 6 122.33% Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly $90.20 7 126.35% Route 5 Cal Poly/La Lake/Madonna $92.83 8 130.03% Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland $64.07 2 89.75% Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown $51.17 1 1 71.68% Trolley $66.69 3 93.42% System Average $71.39 Draft Final Report 97 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 6-6:Weekday Cost per Hour by Route with System Average $100.00 $90.00 Cost per Hour — — Average $60.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — $70.00 $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $0.00 Route 68 Route 6A Trolley Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5 Cost Effectiveness Cost effectiveness measures the effectiveness of the system from a financial standpoint — how well the dollars put into the system are being used to produce trips. The cost effectiveness indicators are cost per passenger and farebox recovery. Cost per Passenger Table 6-11 and Figure 6-7 present the cost per passenger and ranking for each weekday route. This indicator divides the route operating cost among all passengers that use the route.. SLO Transit averages $1.82 in operating costs per passenger system-wide, while the peer group averages $3.06 per passenger. Four of the seven regular routes operate more effectively than the peer average and three do not. As with the service effectiveness measures, Route 6b ($0.84 in operating costs per passenger) is the most effective route and Route 2 ($4.35 in operating costs per passenger) is the least effective route. The Trolley is more cost effective than the system average at $2.24 in operating costs per passenger. Draft Final Report 98 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 6-11:SLO Transit Weekday Cost per Passenger by Route Weekday %of Route Cost per Weak y System Passenger Average Route I Broad,Johnson/Mghland $3.79 7 123.82% Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban $4.35 8 1 142.29% Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Marigold $3.31 6 108.04% Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly $1.73 4 56.66% Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna $1.59 3 52.03% Route 6a Cal Poly/lEghland $1.19 2 38.91% Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown $0.84 1 27.30% Trofley 1 $2.24 1 5 73.09% Peer Average 1 $3.06 Figure 6-7:Weekday Cost per Passenger by Route with Peer Average $5.00 Cost per Passenger $4.50 — — Aeerage $4.00 -- $3.50 -- $3.00 4.00$3.50$3.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — $2.50 -- $2.00 -- $1.50 -- $1.00 2.50$2.00$1.50$1.00 $0.50 -11 $0.00 Route 6B Route 6A Route 5 Route 4 Trolley Route 3 Route 1 Route 2 Draft Final Report 99 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Farebox Recovery Farebox recovery measures the percent of operating cost covered by fares and is an outcome heavily influenced by the ridership productivity of a route against its total operating cost, as well as the fare policy of the system It is calculated by dividing fare revenue by operating cost. Table 6-12 and Figure 6-8 list the farebox recovery ratio for each route as well as how each route ranked compared to the other routes in the system System-wide, SLO Transit routes recover approximately 26% of their operating costs with farebox revenue which is in line with the peer average. Four regular routes are more cost effective than the system average and three are less cost effective. Route 6b (56.25% farebox recovery) is the most effective route and Route 2 (10.79% farebox recovery) is the least effective route. The Trolley is less effective than the system average, with 21.01% farebox recovery. Table 6-12:SLO Transit Weekday Farebox Recovery by Route Weekday W %of Route Cost per Rannk Y System Passenger Average Route 1 Broad,Johnson/Highland 12.40% 7 45.27% Route 2 South lE ra/Suburban 10.79% 8 1 39.40% Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Marigold 14.22% 6 51.88% Route 4 Madonna/La Lake/Cal Poly 27.11% 4 98.93% Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 29.52% 3 107.74% Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 39.47% 2 144.07% Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 1 56.25% 1 205.30% Trolley 21.01% 1 5 76.700/c System Average 27.4% Figure 6-8:Weekday Farebox Recovery by Route with Peer Average 60.000% Farebox Recovery 50.00% — — Average 40.00% 30.00% 20.00%-- 10.00% 0.00% Route 6B Route 6A Route 5 Route 4 Trolley Route 3 Route 1 Route 2 Draft Final Report 100 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Route Ranking The rankings of each of the routes for two indicators can be used to calculate a cumulative rank score for each route on weekdays. The two indicators include passengers per mile to rate service effectiveness and farebox recovery to rate cost effectiveness. Financial efficiency was not rated because the ratings of the routes in this category correlated directly to route length, which does not measure performance. Routes with a higher score are indicative of poorer performing routes which need to be addressed. Routes with a lower score are generally better performing routes that may only require monitoring or minor adjustment in order to integrate better into the SLO Transit network or to serve new generators. Table 6-13 presents the weekday route rankings. Route 6b is the best performing route in the system. Route 5 is also a top performer. On the bottom end of the scale, Route 2 is the worst performing route and Route 1 is also a poor performer. The Trolley is a middle of the road performer, ranked fifth. Table 6-13:SLO Transit Weekday Route Ranking Passengers Farebo% Cumulative Weekday Route per Mile Recovery Rank Score Rank Rank Rank Route I Broad,Johnson/lEghland 7 7 14 7 Route 2 South Hi era/Suburban 8 8 16 8 Route 3 Broad,Johnson/Marigold 6 6 12 6 Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly 4 4 8 4 Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna 3 3 6 3 Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland 2 2 4 2 Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown 1 1 2 1 Trolley 5 1 5 10 5 Individual routes and their positive and negative performance attributes are discussed in the route diagnostics section of this chapter. Draft Final Report 101 Short Range Transit Plan Update far the City of San Luis Obispo Weekday Time of Day Analysis An analysis of ridership by time of day is important to understanding some of the dimensions of the performance described previously. Looking at the system as a whole and each route by time of day, essentially by each trip, provides details that help to understand productivity levels, cost per trip data, and other quantifiable results. Furthermore, looking at each route on a per trip basis provides a profile to study ridership levels in relation to operating headways, and ultimately allows one to determine if current levels of service are appropriate to the results. This analysis includes only data from weekday operations as the Saturday dataset is incomplete. Figure 6-9 provides a chart of ridership by time of day for the SLO Transit system. Systemwide, the greatest number of riders board during the mid-afternoon between 2:00 PM and 3:00 PM. Overall, SLO Transit ridership has steady ridership all day. Like many systems its size, SLO Transit's very early and latest trips do have much lower ridership, however these trips allow for early workers to access jobs, Cal Poly, and downtown events and the latest trips of the day — while not carrying many people — are vital for people to return home. If these trips were eliminated the result would likely negatively impact ridership throughout the rest of the day since passengers would be uncertain if they could get home. Figure 6-9:SLO Transit System:Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 500 450 400 350 300 250 - 200 150 100 50 0 P� P� Sp 00 op 00 op op op .op op op op Op op op op op Ap 0. 1. 6• 6. ^p. ^�. icy. �. �. 3. tw b- 6.. *. 0. 6jO•p 0O•p 1•p p 6P^�O- p Q�.O'p Q�.'p Q�g.6' 1pQty.O'pQ�.6' 10Q�.p'Q4 0• 0OpOp " h• 0• 1• 0• Cb.O Draft Final Report 102 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Route Issues and Opportunities The following sections provide an overview of the individual SLO Transit routes for weekdays and Saturdays. The weekday discussion includes data from the route diagnostics section and ridership data from the SLO Transit ridecheck survey conducted in October 2007. Weekday Regular Routes On weekdays bus service runs from 6:03 AM until 10:44 PM. Fixed route bus service is provided on 7 routes on weekdays. The Trolley provides service on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Route I Broad, Johnson/Highland Route 1 is ranked seventh of eight in the SLO Transit system based on rankings of service and cost effectiveness as discussed earlier in the report. This route provides service between downtown San Luis Obispo, the Foothill Boulevard/Highland Drive neighborhoods, and the southeast portion of the city. It serves the Brickyard, Laurel Lane Market, the County Health Services, French Hospital, Sierra Vista Hospital, Bishops Peak Elementary School, and Foothill Plaza. This route ranks low because it serves areas that are served by other routes, and does not provide service to Cal Poly. Route 1 serves many of the same areas as Route 3 in the southeast quadrant of San Luis Obispo. Table 6-14 lists the performance statistics for Route 1 for an average weekday. Table 6-14:Route 1 Weekday Performance indicators Routed Broad;J61nson713i land> Factor/Indicator VVeekdi". Ridership 214 Revenue Hours 11.27 Revenue Miles 113.40 Operating Speed 10.06 Operating Cost $810.81 Farebox Revenue $100.58 Passengers per Mile_ 1.89 Passenger per Hour 18.99 Cost per Hour $71.94 Cost per Passenger- $3.79 Farebox Recovery 12.40% Cumulative Rank Score 14 Rank 7 of 8 Figure 6-10 plots ridership by time of day for Route 1. Ridership is the greatest during the mid- afternoon. Ridership on this route is consistent ranging between 10 and 20 passengers per trip. Figures 6-11 shows the maximum number of people onboard during a given trip. This route does not have any trips that appear to be overcrowded. The loading profile shows heavy loa..ds Draft Final Report 103 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo on the 1:15 PM and 4:15 PM trips, however these loads can be accommodated by a 30 foot transit vehicle. Figure 6-12 shows on/offactivity by bus stop for Route 1. Ridership is consistent throughout the route, with higher boarding/alighting volumes at the downtown transfer center and at Sierra Vista Hospital. Figure 6-10:Route I Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 54035 45 - 40 - 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 - 0 6:53 7:15 8:15 9:15 10:15 11:15 12:15 1:15 2:15 3:15 4:15 5:15 AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM Figure 6-11: Route 1 Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day 25 20 .'¢ 15 vw. 10 0 MIJ 6:53 7:15 8:15 9:15 10:15 11:15 12:15 1:15 2:15 3:15 4:15 5:15 AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM Draft Final Report 104 I - Q 0000 tn � _ Baa q - � l� ��"" � •' � � .� - O AVO ! { N m � _ W - I — I ost I Y. `e r, C a � "° >' ° II 96 u 00 0. n i A Route 2 S. Higuera/Suburban Route 2 ranks last out of all the routes in terms of service and cost effectiveness. Route 2 operates between downtown San Luis Obispo and the Higuera Plaza. This route serves the Prado Day Center and the Higuera Street corridor. Table 6-15 describes the operating statistics for Route 2 on weekdays. Table 6-15:Route 2 Weekday Performance Indicators -RouW2 SoutWHi` 'ra7Suburban Fac_tor/Indicitor Weekda Ridership 257 Revenue Hours 14.28 Revenue Miles 156.50 Operating Seed 10.96 Operating Cost $1,118.98 Farebox Revenue $120.79 Passengers per Mile. 1.64 Passenger per Hour 18.00 Cost per Hour $78.36. Cost per Passers er $4.35 Farebox Recovery 10.79% Cumulative Rank Score 16 Rank 8 of 8 Figure 6-13 is a time of day chart for Route 2. It shows the number of boardings that occur on each trip throughout the day. Trip activity varies from trip to trip throughout the day with small peaks observed around the 7:45 AM trip and the 4:25 PM trip. Figure 6-14 shows the maximum number of people onboard during each trip. Similar to the boarding profile, the maximum load profile shows that the loads are spread throughout the day with the 7:45 AM and 4:25 PM trips having the highest load. Figure 6-15 is a map of bus stop activity for Route 2 on weekdays. The major stops on this route include the downtown transfer center, the Prado Day Center, and Higuera Plaza. The other stops do see sporadic boarding and alighting activity. Draft Final Report 106 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 6-13:Route 2 Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 30 25 20 15 - 10 5 - 0 - M a a a a ¢ ¢ a a a a a a o. a s a. ¢ a a a a a a O N O V N O V .N O V N. O V N O V N O V t[) U) In M 66 6i Figure 6-14: Route 2 Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day 20 - 18 16 -- 41210 14 - 12 - 10 8 - 6 4 - 2 0 a a a a a a a a a m a a a a a a a a a a a O N O V N O O N O V N O V N O V N O V M O Ln In i6 ai r r r r Draft Final Report 107 - ur m 00 CL - WA) I a s poi h O N Go ° 4 'm C d Q F • 000 a a z a A i Route 3 Broad, Johnson/Marigold Route 3 is ranked 6`h in terms of service and cost effectiveness. This route provides service between downtown San Luis Obispo and southeast portions of the city. This route provides service to French Hospital, County Health Services, Laurel Lane Market, Marigold Center, Damon Garcia Sports Complex, and the Brickyard. This route provides service to many of the same locations that are served by Route 1 in the southeast quadrant of San Luis Obispo. Table 6- 16 is a list of performance statistics for Route 3. Table 6-16: Route 3 Weekday Performance Indicators �' Route:3 Broad'"JoinsonLMar` "old, , ; Ridership 383 Revenue Hours 14.50 Revenue Miles 177.10 Operating Seed 12.21 Operating Cost $1,266.27 Farebox Revenue $180.01 Passengers per Mile 2.16 Passenger per Hour 26.41 Cost per Hour $87.33 Cost per Passenger $3.31 Farebox Recovery 14.22% Cumulative Rank Score 12 Rank 6 of 8 Figure 6-16 is a ridership chart by time of day for Route 3. There is a strong PM peak that is has higher ridership than the midday or AM peak. Many of the trips during the AM peak cant' 25 passengers. Figures 6-17 shows the maximum number of people onboard at a given time for Route 3. The maximum load pattern shows that there is a defined AM and PM peak on this route. Figure 6-18 is a map of boarding and alighting activity by bus stop for Route 3. There are a number of individual stops that have high passenger activity, including the stops closest to the Brickyard, Marigold Center, Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road, and Laurel Lane Market. Draft Final Report 109 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 6-16: Route 3 Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 30 25 - 20 15 10 5 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a a a a a a a m a m a m a o- a In Lo la 0 LO LO La in 0 to u) un to 0 0 w w tnm w w m w O N O N O � N O qr N O V N O R N O V r r r r 6i .- N M f7 4 6 16 6 1� 00 6 O Figure 6-17:Route 3 Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a. o_ a a o_ n. a a a Q. a. a a a Q 1n w to 1n Lo w 1n O 0 0 to 0 0 M 0 6 In 6 aD m m w w - C6 CO 1� h GC O 6 O e- N N &i C7 R to 6 O 1` O O O Draft Final Report 110 • Q - a T - ea 'O � Sao Lti�Ot - d 3 M V ai y �S cirW tm a oe Y Q Z �L Q l Route 4 Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly Route 4 ranks 4th out of all the routes. This route operates as a loop in the clockwise direction connecting downtown, to the Madonna Shopping Center, and the Cal Poly campus. This route serves numerous generators including the Amtrak Station, the Greyhound Station, Madonna Plaza, shopping along Los Osos Valley Road, Foothill Plaza, and the Cal Poly campus. This route also serves residential areas along Santa Rosa Street, Descanso Street, and Ramona Drive. The reason why this route ranks so high is that it provides service to the Cal Poly campus, while serving many neighborhoods where students live. Table 6-17 provides performance statistics for Route 4 on weekdays. Table 6-17:Route 4 Weekday Performance Indicators Route 4,Madonna%La una=Lake/Cal`PoI `."Factorllndicator Weekda Ridership 1,438 Revenue Hours 27.64 Revenue Miles 348.70 Operating Seed 12.62 Operating Cost $2,493.21 Farebox Revenue $675.86 Passengers per Mile 4.12 Passenger per Hour 52.03 Cost per Hour $90.20 Cost per Passenger $1.73 Farebox Recovery 27.11% Cumulative Rank Score 8 Rank 4 of 8 Figure 6-19 presents ridership by time of day for Route 4. Ridership is high on this route all day, with trips that serve Cal Poly at the top of the hour having the highest ridership. Very few of the trips on this route have fewer than 20 passengers using it. Figure 65-20 shows the maximum number of people onboard during each trip of Route 4 on weekdays. Maximum loads occur during the AM peak and midday periods when students are going to Cal Poly classes. In the evening, there is another peak when students are returning home. These trips are overcrowded. Figure 6-21 is a map showing weekday activity by bus stop for Route 4. Ridership is high throughout the route. The stops located on the Cal Poly campus have the highest amount of boarding and alighting activity. Other major stops include residential areas along Ramona Drive, Los Osos Valley Road, and the Amtrak Station. Drafi Final Report 112 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 6-19:Route 4 Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 - 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a n. a na a a a d a m a o. m m a a a 0 0 0 0 _o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ o _O 6 0 0 0 0 0 f0 i0 1� n O W W O O O N N r r N N f7 M Q of lA 1A O � O O O Figure 6-20:Route 4 Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 a a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ a ¢ a a a a a a a a m m a a a a a a a n a O_ o 0 o o_ o 0 o O_ o o_ o o_ o o_ o 0 o c o c o 0 0 o fC iG f� t� cb OO 6 O O CN N � � 6i 6i kH �M 4 ii Lb Ib tC I� O T O r r r Draft Final Report 113 rb O ar h 7 Y u v s iii 0 eo r Q+ m ti r i — 00 00 a fi O Y Q C Route 5 Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna Route 5 ranks third of all routes in terms of service and cost effectiveness. Route 5 provides service between downtown San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly, Madonna Plaza, Greyhound, and Amtrak This route is a loop route that operates in the reverse direction of Route 4, serving the same generators and areas as Route 4. Table 6-18 provides performance statistics for Route 5. Table 6-18: Route 5 Weekday Performance Indicators ;Route s Gal l?oi /I� una:Lake/Miidiiunar Factor/Indicator '' Weekda k Ridership 1,495 Revenue Hours 25.64 Revenue Miles 332.90 Operating Seed 12.98 Operating Cost $2,380.24 Farebox Revenue $702.65 Passengers per Mile 4.49 Passenger per Hour 58.31 Cost per Hour $92.83 Cost perPassenger $1.59 Farebox Recovery29.52% Cumulative Rank Score 6 Rank 3 of 8 Figure 6-22 shows ridership by time of day for Route 5. This route has heavy ridership on every other trip all day. The trips with heavy ridership are scheduled to reach the Cal Poly campus during periods when classes are letting out. Ridership is heavier in the morning and midday periods versus the afternoon periods. Figure 6-23 shows the maximum load by trip for Route 5. The maximum load profile reflects the ridership profile for this route, with trips scheduled to reach the Cal Poly campus when classes let out having the highest load. Similar to Route 4, these trips are overcrowded Figure 6-24 is a map of weekday activity by bus stop for Route 5. Boarding and alighting activity is heavy throughout most segments of the routes. The stops that have the most activity are on the Cal Poly campus. Other major stops include the downtown transfer center, Greyhound, and the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road. Bus stops in areas where a lot of students live also have a significant amount of boarding and alighting activity. Draft Final Report 115 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 6-22:Route 5 Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 120 100 80 -- 60 - 40 - 20 0604020 0 a a a ¢ a a a ¢ ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ o. a a a a a a a a a a a a n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 N N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N Ln N O N O N O N O CO CD LD P 1� W a0 O Ln O O r N N N N M fM V' er in tL) CC r r r r r r Figure 6-23: Route 5 Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 a a a a a a a a a a a Q Q a a a a a o_ a a a a a. a s a. 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N. Ln N in N O N O Cn O O n Kf O 6 6 O O r r N N C7 6i R a 6 O L6 6 Draft Final Report 116 1 a ' a 0 Q9 ElEQlE �v 0 t r _ 1 � A c d d 3 g e en w C+ mto ° ra c a y Qz4.1 0. � • 0o• I � 1 0 1 Q fi GL Q Q Route 6a Cal Poly/Highland Route 6a ranks second out of all the routes. Route 6a is a loop route that provides service between the Cal Poly campus and neighborhoods where a lot of students live west of campus along Highland and Foothill. This is the only SLO Transit route that serves the northern portions of campus. Besides serving the neighborhoods along Highland, this route provide additional capacity along Ramona Drive, where bus routes do experience crowding issues. This route also provides service to Sierra Vista Hospital. Table 6-19 provides performance statistics for Route 6a. Table 6-19:Route 6a Weekday Performance Indicators �Roite 6ii,Ca1 Po lAi hland t'- Factoi^/Indi'cator Weekda ; Ridership 699 Revenue Hours 12.99 Revenue Miles 116.40 Operating Speed(NTH) 8.96 Operating Cost 832.26 Farebox Revenue $328.53 Passengers per Mile 6.01 Passenger per Hour 53.81 Cost per Hour $64.07 Cost er Passenger $1.19 Farebox Recovery 39.47% Cumulative Rank Score 4 Rank 2 of 8 Figure 6-25 charts ridership by time of day for Route 6a. Ridership is high throughout the day. This is because this route primarily serves students going to and from the Cal Poly campus. The 7:35 AM trip has the highest ridership of all trips on this route. Figure 6-26 shows the maximum load per trip for Route 6a. This chart shows that, similar to ridership by time of day, loads on the bus are heavy throughout the day, with the 7:35 AM trip having the highest load and being overcrowded. Figure 6-27 shows activity by bus stop for Route 6a. Activity is consistently high throughout the route. Activity is greatest at the stops at Cal Poly. Drafi Final Report 118 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 6-25:Route 6a Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 a a ¢ ¢ ¢ a a ¢ Q tl t1 t1 G. tl d d tl m tl tl m m a, a d tl N to tq M to to to to to to to to to to to to to an to to to U.) O O O O O M O M O c) O M O M O M O M O M O M O M O M r r �— I� Figure 6-26: Route 6a Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day 60 50 40 30 20 c 10 IRE va 0 a a a a a a Q a ¢ ¢ a a a a a a a. a s a a a o. a a a o. N t17 tp 1p M to 0 to to to to to 0 to to 0 to to to 0 to O O O O O I� 1� O O OA 0 0 0 N N 4- r N N M M 4 Q to to 6 rz 66 6 O Draft Final Report 119 I N Z u I - q e - m - I u - 3 I OO- N 6i L - _ � I a m • • 00• � � x Q Q Route 6b Cal Poly/Downtown Route 6b is the highest ranking route for SLO Transit. This route operates between downtown San Luis Obispo and the Cal Poly campus. The main purpose of this route is to provide additional capacity between the downtown transfer center and the Cal Poly campus to help alleviate crowding on Routes 4 and 5. This route also does extend system coverage along California Boulevard. This route ranks so well because it is a short route that is heavily utilized. Table 6-20 provides performance statistics for Route 6b. Table 6-20: Route 6b Weekday Performance Indicators Route;6b Cal Pol /Downtown A; . FActo[/Ind CStOr ., ;' Weekda Ridership 801 Revenue Hours 13.08 Revenue Miles 93.60 Operating Seed(MPH) 7.16 Operating Cost $669.24 Farebox Revenue $376.47 Passengers per Mile 8.56 Passenger per Hour 61.24 Cost per Hour $51.17 Cost per Passen er $0.84 Farebox Recovery 56.25% Cumulative Rank Score 2 Rank 1 of 8 Figure 6-28 shows ridership by time of day for Route 6b. The highest number of boardings occur during the AM peak period. Overall there is a ridership spike during the PM peak, with many trips carrying over 30 passengers. Very few trips carry fewer than 10 passengers. Figure 6-29 shows the maximum number of people onboard during each trip on Route 6b. The highest load occurs on the 7:34 AM trip, which is overcrowded. This chart shows a similar pattern to the ridership by time of day profile for this route. Figure 6-30 is a map of activity by bus stop for Route 6b. Ridership is pretty consistent throughout the route. Activity is highest at the downtown transfer center and on the Cal Poly campus. Draft Final Report 121 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 6-28: Route 6b Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 70 60 50 40 30 -A d 20 10 0 -A�. Ullfl4ljm 111, Il 1 . 1 § 1 Ijc a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a O M O O coM O O f O O O VO' v r r r r r r Figure 6-29: Route 6b Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day 70 - 60 - 50 - 40 -- 30 -- 20 -- 10 0605040302010 09 'b I a a �d �d d� a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a c o chi c`ti c+S c`li chi c`j+ o o c a v v a '7 4 Lb O (6 I�z O O r r r r r r Draft Final Report 122 I.I i I any.urvE)• '� �S�nT .� I neg�r" I r r C14 cis d CD a i °�a�� O C � is O m ej r� N ❑ C� V „ i Ie. ' o y e fi �L e A Downtown Trolley The Downtown Trolley ranks 5`h out of all the routes in terms of service and cost effectiveness. This route operates between downtown San Luis Obispo and the hotels along Monterey Street east of downtown. Service is provided only on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The hours of operation vary by day of the week. Survey ridership was collected on a Thursday, which is the day that has the shortest span. Table 6-21 lists the performance statistics for the Downtown Trolley. Table 6-21:Downtown Trolley Weekday Performance Indicators �,,�`�Downfown Trope �`` 'EsctorMdicator ;` 'Thursda i Ridership 164 Revenue Hours 5.50 Revenue Miles 51.30 Operating Seed 9.33 Operating Cost $366.80 Farebox Revenue $41.00 Passengers per Mile 3.20 Passenger per Hour 29.82 Cost per Hour $66.69 Cost per Passen er $2.24 _ Farebox Recovery 21.01% Cumulative Rank Score 10 Rank 5 of 8 Figure 6-31 presents ridership by time of day charts for the Downtown Trolley. Service on this route is provided only during the evening periods on the day it was surveyed. Ridership was the highest on the trips from 5:30 PM to 8:00 PM, denoting that this route is used mainly during the dinner rush period. Figure 6-32 describes the maximum number of people onboard during each trip for the Downtown Trolley. This chart also shows that the most people were onboard the trolley during the dinner rush time periods. Figure 6-33 shows activity by bus stop for the downtown trolley. Ridership is low but pretty consistent throughout the route. Activity is highest in downtown where there are many attractions located adjacent to the route. Draft Final Report 124 I Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 6-31:Downtown Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 ,aii m a a a a a a a a a a a. a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O LO Lo C 0 0 0 0 0 'Crr M U) CO) Ln r 'R r 'RT O N Nt O CM tf 4 4 C6 0 0 O O t` r:�: M O M O Figure 6-32:Downtown Trolley Weekday Maximum Load by Time of Day 35 30 25 20 - 15 - 10 - 5 - 0 - m 0151050m a m a a m a. a a a a a a m a m 0 0 0 0 0 0 L0M 0 0 0 0 0 0 V r M Lo r M U) O N V O M v v v in Lo Ln co co r` r` eo e0 aD O Draft Final Report 125 Son ri i..__.__ ♦ ��i R �.,t�td Fk"°1,t7 'crlr z 'f jr �� ,�\ .✓ �Y,ss Q \ rLkgaL } Jl<•iLo >*,/•r�..t l/.n t k:\ N y� \T > *\r {fi. w���':�2� �f us'\ '1r't ✓�d� f s\s%- '� r.PS � � �t � �Y'' 1 Y 44� r r a'. '4 � �r.y''' �� � r �; 6 ✓ 's Rill All, � � _..__� i—_ \'ff>^_':— «fes S\ :/ e 7� s' t`�, r /'..` �:.i V• dO.�' '4 �v V I fM d � �' X _ ♦ `' �j L u '` - 1 Com,° Yi+ ,�" .1huEm„art�,'��.K�" 'IA, 009 d `\ —- ___ �'s� e o, ��'4�a(��•" :�' via ri',���t'�x^F* , `gin.+ ��E'. e� ♦.r 4 a a z w Q 0 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Overall Issues and Opportunities The findings in this section are based upon all of the materials collected for both this chapter as well as the preceding memos, and thus takes into account the quantitative data as well as the issues and opportunities identified by the customers, stakeholders, and those who commented at the drop in sessions; and the data from the peer group and trend analyses. The analysis of SLO Transit services shows a number of issues as well as opportunities for service improvements. The list below presents the issues and opportunities for the SLO Transit route network: • There are issues with overcrowding on routes that serve the Cal Poly campus • Running time/On-time performance issues • The frequency and span of service on Friday differing from other weekdays • Frequency and span of service during summer periods versus winter periods • Duplication with SLO-RTA services • Fare issues between LORTA and SLO Transit services • Quality and accuracy of public information • Confusing route network with bi-directional loops • Low productivity on certain routes • Difficult turns for certain bus routes on neighborhood streets • Equipment issues with old buses and deployment of buses to meet ridership • Service needed to emerging corridors • The need for an off-street transfer center Draft Final Report 127 0 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo 7. Final Route Plan and Implementation This chapter presents the modifications to the fixed route public transportation system operated by San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit). The service proposals for the system address the Short Range Transit Plan issues. Figure 7-1 presents the proposed route network. Figure 7-1: SLO Transit Proposed Route Network sanitasueispo N Short Range Transit ^� Plan Update �s Proposed FBlvd �c System v Structure w a �a 4 h v a o� 0 9 C l so"$I Rome Z f Rd 3 3-TenTo Rucring o0 4&5 Pledo Rd —d Z New Cnm-o (Y.3) 4, Trolley V lblley-TammaY Roulmg �..� - . r D� _PW6 City Linuu ou gl 0 0.2.5 0.3 Milo Planning Precepts The route modifications developed for the SLO Transit system are based on several planning precepts. These themes are utilized to guide the development of the proposals and are, in no particular order, as follows: Ease of Comprehension — The first precept utilized is that the layout and organization of the SLO Transit bus routes should be easy to understand. Both occasional users of the system, as well as first-time riders, should be able to quickly determine which routes serve their intended destination. The SLO Transit system should not be familiar only to those who rely on it on a daily basis. Draft Final Report 128 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Two additional elements of creating an easy-to-comprehend transit system are the use of"clockface headways" (i.e., regularly recurring headways) on as many bus routes as possible and the simplification of the route nomenclature system. Specifically, complex alpha-numeric route designations should be avoided when possible. Respond to Public InputlUnmet Needs Analysis — Throughout the public outreach process, input was received from various constituencies concerning their views on the transit system In addition, the 2007 Transit Needs Assessment Update prepared by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) was reviewed for additional input. An element in the development of the route modifications presented in this chapter was to address and respond to as many of the comments received in the public input process — and to as many of the unmet needs described in the SLOCOG report—as possible. Address Overcrowding Issues — An important planning precept was to address issues of overcrowding on routes— and balanced passenger loads among specific trips — specifically service to California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), Downtown, and other generators. Bi-Directional Service — Another planning precept was, whenever feasible, to maintain bi-directional service along a bus route and, in turn, to eliminate large one-way loops. Improve Intermodal Connectivity — The ease of connections between SLO Transit and other modes—including SLORTA, Amtrak, intercity bus services and even commercial airline .service — were a consideration throughout the development of these route proposals. Street Geometry Issues — Whenever possible, street geometry issues uncovered during the earlier phases of the planning process, particularly from conversations with drivers, were addressed when developing these route proposals. This includes eliminating turns that are difficult for the drivers and removing service from streets that are narrow or have poor visibility. Service to Poly Canyon Village — The Poly Canyon Village development on the Cal Poly campus is well underway and is expected to open in less than a year. The addition of service to what is expected to become a major ridership generator was also considered a precept of the planning process. Extend Transit Coverage Throughout the City of San Luis Obispo—Another precept that was important in the development of the route proposals was that the geographic coverage provided by public transportation service be extended where feasible. Draft Final Report 129 o Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Maintain and Improve Service to Emerging Corridors — An important planning precept was to continue to serve or to provide new service to emerging corridors in the San Luis Obispo area. Specifically, the existing corridor along Los Osos Valley Road and the corridor south of Tank Farm Road towards the airport were important considerations. Fare Integration — The final planning precept involved fares. In order to most effectively minimize duplication between the SLO Transit and SLORTA systems —and to, by extension, extend the geographic coverage provided by transit service in the area—the issue of an integrated fare system should be considered. For any transit user, the SLO Transit and SLORTA systems should essentially be interchangeable, thus allowing them access to locations on either transit system throughout San Luis Obispo. This can be done by coordinating with SLORTA in terms of schedules, fare policy, and transfer policy, including a joint fare media accepted by both operators. Route Modification Proposals Route 1 — This route would operate between Sierra Vista Hospital and Johnson/Southwood via Santa Rosa Street and Broad Street; operating through downtown. North of downtown this route would operate on Santa Rosa Street, Murray Street, Casa Street, and Foothill Boulevard. It will operate a terminal loop that goes west on Foothill Boulevard, south on Tassajara Street, east on Ramona Drive, and north on Broad Street back to Foothill Boulevard. It would serve the Downtown Transfer Center via Mill and Osos Streets, and would exit downtown via the current Route 1 alignment on Palm, Nipomo and Marsh Streets. Route 1 would continue south along Broad Street to Orcutt Road with a terminal loop utilizing Orcutt Road, Johnson Ave, Sotuhwood Road, and Laurel Lane. The return trip northbound, Route 1 would return to northbound Broad Street using Orcutt Road. It will operate along Broad Street and enter downtown via the current alignment of Route 3. It would again serve the Downtown Transfer Center via Mill and Osos Streets, and would then proceed westbound on Palm Street and northbound on Chorro Street. The modifications to Route 1 create a bi-directional corridor along Broad Street and, together with the proposed modifications to Route 3, greatly simplify the service patterns in the southeastern portion of the service area. Ideally there will be.a timed transfer along Laurel Lane between Routes I and 3. One roundtrip on Route 1 will be 9.8 revenue miles long and take approximately one hour. We anticipate one bus providing hourly service along Route 1. In future years an additional bus will be required to provide 30 minute service. Figure 7-2 presents the route map for the proposed Route 1. -�t- Draft Final Report 130 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 7-2:Proposed Route 1 - Short Range Transit Plan Update _. P Proposed t Route 1 N S r 5� b' tr SmLh St Lend —RtI -A City Li=it Rd 00 0.11 00.2 Min PP3 IInmIRM1 Route 2 —The current SLO Transit Route 2 will be greatly modified. SLO Transit Route 2 would be operated from the North Perimeter Drive on the Cal Poly campus to California Boulevard, and exiting the campus along the alignment of the current Route 6b. After serving the Downtown Transfer Center, Route 2 will utilize Palm Street to access Santa Rosa Street and proceed south to the Amtrak Station. Route 2 will continue onto Railroad Avenue and exit the station complex opposite Upham Street. It will then utilize Santa Barbara Street and South Street to serve the current Greyhound Bus Station. From the Greyhound Bus Station Route 2 will utilize Higuera Street to Los Osos Valley Road. The route will return north on Route 101 to Pardo Road and terminate at the Prado Day Center stop. Northbound, Route 2 will depart from the Prado Day Center and turn north on South Higuera Street. The route will operate along Higuera Street to the current Greyhound Bus Station, deviating to serve Suburban Road. It will then utilize South and Santa Barbara Streets to enter the Amtrak Station parking lot opposite Upham Street. Route 2 will continue onto Railroad Avenue and Santa Rosa Street and utilize Mill and Osos Streets to serve the Downtown Transfer Center. It will depart downtown via Mill Street and will utilize California Boulevard to enter the Cal Poly campus via the alignment of Draft Final Report 131 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo the current Route 6b. Route 2 will then operate to the route terminal on North Perimeter Road. The new Route 2 incorporates segments of the existing Routes 2, 4, 5 and 6b and serves to provide a bi-directional service between the center of the Cal Poly campus, downtown San Luis Obispo, and—with respect to intermodal connectivity—the Amtrak Station and the current Greyhound Bus Station. It also serves the Prado Day Center near its southern end. It should also be noted that the bus stop on Santa Barbara Street at Church Street would need to be moved only one block south to Upham Street to accommodate this service modification. In addition, although the southbound service along Buchon and Osos Streets presently served by Route 4 is eliminated, there are no bus stops (and thus no ridership) along this segment. One roundtrip on Route 2 will be 13.2 revenue miles long and take approximately 60 minutes. We anticipate two buses providing service every 30 minutes on Route 2. Figure 7-3 presents a map showing the proposed Route 2. Figure 7-3:Proposed Route 2 s S,hon Ran Transit Plan Update N mr Proposed Foou dt Blvd �^ a Route 2 10�-H— a .0 Rd- N�0 � s 8 E. Q r '6n i -..SauW St- -• M� y =Piub Rd -Pub �._�'h Turk Farm Rd 'y City Limb }- )��• 0 0.2 0.4 Mile --- _ - I I-------q Draft Final Report 132 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Route 3 —The modified Route 3 would operate from the Downtown Transfer Center and serve the Johnson Street corridor to the Johnson Street/Augusta Street couplet. It would then utilize Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road to Tank Farm Road, from which it would proceed south along Broad Street and utilize the San Luis Obispo Airport as a turn- around location. Service to the airport is dependant on the installation of a traffic signal at Aero Drive. Until this signal is installed Route 3 will turn left from Tank Farm Road onto Poinsettia Street and turn right Fuller Road and terminate at Broad Street and Fuller Road. The northbound route would return via Broad Street to Tank Farm Road and utlize the same streets as the southbound routing. Route 3 would enter downtown San Luis Obispo via the current alignment of northbound Route 1 and would exit downtown via the current alignment of southbound Route 3. Along with the proposed modifications to Route 1, the modifications to Route 3 greatly simplify the SLO Transit service patterns in the southeastern portion of the service area. The emerging employment corridor along Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and the airport is also served, and the airport provides for a convenient turn-around location for Route 3 as well. Ideally there will be a timed transfer along Laurel Lane between Routes 1 and 3. One roundtrip on Route 3 will take approximately one hour, and will travel 10.9 revenue miles. We anticipate one bus providing hourly service along Route 3. In future years an additional bus will be needed to provide 30 minute service. Figure 7-4 presents a map showing the proposed Route 3. Draft Final Report 133 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 7-4:Proposed Route 3 saannui s OBISpO Short Range 7�anstt Plan Update Proposed s2 Route 3 n �s k ° _ 9 Some Sr i Rd m - -Prado Rd S9' en R1 l Took Fame Rd t -- R,3-T�Raai� t - �Vaawm �Puka Cay Limim 0 OJS V.)Mile �--.�—i M Buckl Route 4 and 5 — The new SLO Transit Route 4 and 5 will replace the current Routes 4 and 5, operating in a similar manner—a large loop in opposite directions. The new Route 5 will operate in a counter-clockwise direction (i.e., serving the Cal Poly campus first upon departure from downtown San Luis Obispo), while the new Route 4 will operate in a clockwise direction similar to today's operation. This route will no longer serve the Amtrak Station, Santa Rosa Street, and South Street, which will instead be served on Route 2. This route will instead operate on Higuera Street between Downtown and Madonna Road. Route 4 will exit the Downtown Transfer Center utilizing Palm, Nipomo and Higuera Streets to directly access Higuera Street. Route 4 will then serve Madonna Road (and Madonna Plaza), Los Osos Valley Road, the Descanso Loop via Prefumo Canyon Road, Del Rio Avenue and Descanso Street and continue on into Foothill Boulevard. It will stay on Foothill Boulevard to Tassajarra and Ramona (once upgrades to the intersection are completed). Upon returning to Foothill Boulevard it will utilize the current alignment of Route 4 into the Cal Poly campus however it will utilize California Boulevard and North Perimeter Drive to serve the Cal Poly campus, and utilize Grand Street and Mill Street to access the Downtown Transfer Center. Route 4 will no longer Draft Final Report 134 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo utilize Auto Park Way on the lower portions of Los Osos Valley Road to turnaround, it will turnaround utilizing the Home Depot parking lot. Route 5 will leave the Downtown Transfer Center utilizing the current Route 5 alignment, and will utilize Grand Street to serve the Cal Poly campus, utilizing North Perimeter Drive and California Boulevard for on-campus circulation, similar to the proposed route 4. Upon leaving campus it will serve Foothill Boulevard as the 5 does today. Route 5 will then serve the Descanso Loop via Descanso Street; Del Rio Avenue and Prefumo Canyon Road. Route 5 will continue along Los Osos Valley Road. It will then return to Madonna Road and serve Madonna Plaza. Route 5 will then proceed to Higuera Street and approach downtown San Luis Obispo utilizing the alignment of the current Route 2; however, at Chorro Street Route 5 will utilize Chorro and Mill Streets to access the Downtown Transfer Center. Route 5 will no longer utilize Auto Park Way on the lower portions of Los Osos Valley Road to turnaround, it will turnaround utilizing the Home Depot parking lot. The modified Route 4 and 5 is a more "streamlined" version of the current Routes 4 and 5. It serves downtown more directly and allows the southern end of downtown San Luis Obispo to be served by the modified Route 2. More streets also receive bi-directional service, and the use of"5 and "4" for the route nomenclature is appropriate given that this is essentially the same loop route in opposite directions. Although service is removed from Marsh Street between Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets and from portions of Nipomo and Pismo Streets, these street segments'essentially have no bus stops. The cycle time for both routes will be 60 minutes, which should be possible based on the more direct route alignment. The Route 4 will travel 11.2 miles and the Route 5 will travel 11.5 miles. We anticipate two buses providing service every 30 minutes on Route 5 and two buses providing service every 30 minutes on Route 4, fora total of four buses on Route 4 and 5. Below is a route map for Routes 4 and 5. A route map is presented on Figure 7-5. Draft Final Report 135 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 7-5:Proposed Routes 4 and 5 sant owspo Short Range Transit ® Ad Plan Update Proposed = .F rodiill Ewa Routes 4&5 - V 10 s 0 p -'South St 2 - RbaRS �.Raatrmd � N City l.imib N h - -Prado Rd o o als aJ Mily Route 6—The new Route 6 is essentially the renamed Route 6a. The current Route 6a is modified by not serving the Sierra Vista Hospital loop via Santa Rosa, Murray and Casa Streets, which is now served by Route 1. The full cycle of the Route 6 will travel 3.7 miles and is expected to take 30 minutes including layover time. We anticipate one bus providing service every 30 minutes along Route 6. Figure 7-6 presents a route map for Route 6. Draft Final Report 136 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 7-6:Proposed Route 6 ssAnlwsoetspo Short Range P-ansit Plan Update Proposed —! Route 6 ,P 11 N 2 - d Foothill Blvd qa 1M�A N _W6 Railroad A OONtYoan �(N Cy U. 40 U.0 0.1 Milo Routes 6b—This designation is no longer utilized, as Route 6a is essentially Route 5 and Route 6b has been replaced by the modified Route 2. Downtown Trolley — This route continues to operate as it does today, utilizing one vehicle. New Cross-town Route—This would be a new route that would be implemented in year 5 of the plan, depending on funding, to enable a connection between eastern portions of the city, southern portions of the city, and Madonna Plaza without operating through downtown. This route is. shown below on Figure 7-7, and operates primarily along Tank Farm Road, Broad Street, and Johnson Street to allow this cross-town movement. This route would operate with one vehicle, providing service every 60 minutes. The vehicle will travel a total of 17.2 revenue miles, however the 60 minute cycle time is based on operating in relative free-flow conditions and not experiencing the traffic conditions of the Cal Poly campus or Downtown. Draft Final Report 137 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Figure 7-7:New Cross-town Route sAntuisonspo f8 'Y. Shari Range 7Yansit Plan Update Proposed 6. Crosstown Route v smmb sr - \ Rd y Lft H Gj, Pmdo Rd eRA0u i Z� �a q Nev 6onmar Ri(Vor l) 40, O +-�Ruhwd q �OY11m "9 Tank F.Rd firyLwin .Z 0 0.15 Ql Mde Implementation Schedule The implementation schedule allows for phased introduction of new services. This phased approach ensures that new services have the opportunity to mature before additional changes are made, and allows for incremental service changes to respond to agency finances. While the first year of the plan does have significant route changes, with the current route network completely overhauled, the overall impact to operations in terms of requiring additional resources is minimal. Subsequent years add additional services to the route network, modifying hours and frequency, as well as adding other route changes and cross-town services. Fare policy changes are also included in the implementation plan. A total of three fare increases are suggested as part of the plan in order to keep up with the cost of operating service, maintain the minimum required farebox recovery, and to minimize the need for less frequent but substantial fare increases. These increases are scheduled for years 1, 3, and 5 of the plan. Draft Final Report 138 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Below are the highlights of the implementation schedule: Year 1 The first year of service completely overhauls the route network. All of the route modifications described in the route modification proposal section, with the exception of the new cross-town route, would be implemented in the first year. The route frequencies would be the same as described in the route proposals. The span for these routes would be roughly the same as what is operated by the current route network. The impact on revenue hours and miles will be minimal. The implementation of the year 1 route network will have a fare change associated with it. The base fare would increase by 25% from$1.00 to $1.25. This will have impacts on all other fare types, categories, and media. Along with the fare increases proposed, SLO Transit should work with Cal Poly to increase the amount of revenue collected associated with providing Cal Poly students with unlimited rides as part of the fare change. The proposed fare levels for the base year and each year that has a fare change associated with it is presented below on Table 6-1. Year 2 Year 2 leaves the year 1 route network and fare structure intact. The changes proposed in year 2 are geared towards improving mobility,on the Broad Street corridor. Route 1 service will be provided on weekends to allow access to Broad Street on all days of the week. Year 3 Year 3 will see a fare change as well as having regular weekday service operate on Fridays. .The fare change includes an 8% increase in the base fare from $1.25 to $1.35 with increases to other fare media and categories. Concurrent with this fare change, SLO Transit should work with Cal Poly to increase the amount of revenue collected associated with providing Cal Poly students with unlimited rides. The individual fares by category are detailed on Table 6-1. The service changes include modifying the schedule of Route 6 on Fridays in order to provide the same service as the rest of the week. Year 4 Year 4 will add service during the summer periods so that there is a single year round schedule. Also, during peak commuting periods, additional service will be provided on routes 1 and 3 resulting in 30 minute service. This will add service to Route 6 in the summertime daytime periods, provide evening service on routes 2, 3, 4, and 6, as well as provide additional weekday service on routes 1 and 3. Draft Final Report 139 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Year 5 Year 5 will see the implementation of the new cross-town route as well as additional service on routes 1 and 3. A fare adjustment will also occur in year 5. The new cross- town route will enhance the route network by allowing for east-west movement in the southern parts of San Luis Obispo without the need to go downtown, as well as provide access to the hotels on eastern part of Monterey Street. Additional service will be provided on routes 1 and 3 to allow for 30 minute all day service on these routes. Evening service will be provided on Route 1 to allow for evening access to the Broad Street corridor. A base fare increase of 11%, from $1.35 to $1.50, is proposed in year 5 with increases to all other fare media as well. Concurrent with this fare change, SLO Transit should work with Cal Poly to increase the amount of revenue collected associated with providing Cal Poly students with unlimited rides. The individual fares by category are detailed on Table 7-1. Table 7-1:Fare Proposals Current Fare Year 1 Fare Year 3 Fare Year 5 Fare Base Fare $1.00 $1.25 $1.35 $1.50 Senior Fare $0.50 $0.60 $0.65 $0.75 Disabled Fare $0.50 $0.60 $0.65 $0.75 Children Fare Free Free Free Free Trolley Fare $0.25 $0.35 $0.50 $0.75 31 Day Regular $30.00 $37.00 $40.00 $45.00 31 Day Student $20.00 $25.00 $27.00 $30.00 31 Day Senior/Disabled $10.00 $12.50 $13.50 $15.00- 7 Day Pass $10.00 $12.50 $13.50 $15.00 5 Day Pass $7.00 $8.50 $9.50 $10.00 3 Day Pass 1 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 1 $7.50 1 Day Pass 1 $3.00 1 $3.50 $4.00 1 $4.50 Revenue Miles and Hours Table 7-2 presents the revenue miles and hours for each year of the plan. What this table shows is that revenue miles increase by about 5.5% in the first year, while revenue hours increase by 13.5%. The reason for this increase is that the proposed plan includes layover time in the revenue hour calculation, however deadhead time is not included. Also, year 1 does represent an increase in service, with transit coverage increasing throughout the city, including the addition of another vehicle. Years 2 and 3 represent a more modest increase in service with revenue hours and miles increasing by about 3% each year. Year 4 introduces a significant amount of an additional service by adjusting the route schedules so that the school session service operates throughout the year, including evening services, resulting in about a 10-11% increase in service. Year 5 introduces the Cross-town route which is a longer distance route that operates rather quickly, resulting in a 16.5% increase in revenue miles, while revenue hours increase by 13%. Draft Final Report 140 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 7-2:Revenue Miles and Hours Year Revenue Miles Revenue Mile Revenue Hours Revenue Hour Chane Change Base Year 389,636 N/A 34,254 N/A Year 1 406,743 4.39% 34,800 1.60% Year 2 417,995 2.77% 35,960 3.33% Year 3 420,260 0.54% 36,266 0.85% Year 4 463,730 10.34% 40,506 11.69% Year 5 1 540,506 16.57% 46,226 14.12% Tables 7-3 and 74 show revenue miles for Mondays through Thursdays as well as for Fridays, respectively. Miles are broken down by route,plan year, and time of day. Table 7-3:Revenue Miles-Mondays through Thursdays Base Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year Route I Day 113.70 106.70 106.70 1 106.70 164.90 223.10 Evening No Service Route 2 Day 131.20 295.20 295.20 295.20 295.20 295.20 Evening 27.20 49.20 49.20 49.20 49.20 49.20 Route 3 Day 140.80 119.90 119.90 119.90 185.30 250.70 Evening 35.90 43.60 43.60 43.60 43.60 43.60 Route 4 Day 291.40 289.80 289.80 289.80 289.80 289.80 Evening 57.30 50.40 50.40 1 50.40 50.40 1 50.40 Route 5 Day 316.10 322.50 322.50 322.50 322.50 322.50 Evening 16.80 12.90 12.90 12.90 12.90 12.90 Route 6 Day N/A 77.70 77.70 77.70 77.70 77.70 Evening 14.80 14.80 14.80 14.80 14.80 Day 5.80 Route 6a Evening 90.00 Discontinued Day 9.20 Route 6b Evening 70.00 Discontinued Route Day 0.00 Discontinued 6a/b Evening 35.00 Crosstown DayN/A 17 2.00 Evening 0.00 Trolley 54.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Day 1222.20 1261.80 1261.80 1261.80 1385.40 1681.00 Total Evening 1 172.20 170.90 170.90 170.90 170.90 170.90 TOTAL 1394.40 1432.70 1432.70 1432.70 1556.30 1 1851.90 Draft Final Report 141 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 7-4:Revenue Miles-Fridays Base Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year Route 1 Day 113.70 106.70 106.70 106.70 164.90 223.10 Evening No Service Route 2 Day 131.20 295.20 295.20 295.20 295.20 295.20 Evening 27.20 49.20 49.20 49.20 49.20 49.20 Route 3 Day 140.80 119.90 119.90 119.90 185.30 250.70 Evening 35.90 43.60 43.60 43.60 43.60 43.60 Route 4 Day 293.10 289.80 289.80 289.80 289.80 289.80 Evening 57.30 50.40 50.40 1 50.40 50.40 50.40 Route 5 Day 316.10 322.50 322.50 322.50 322.50 322.50 Evening 16.80 12.90 12.90 12.90 12.90 12.90 Day 33.30 33.30 77.70 77.70 77.70 Route 6 N/A Evening 14.80 14.80 14.80 14.80 14.80 Day 7200 Route 6a/b Evening 35.00 Discontinued Crosstown Day N/A 17 2.00 Evening 0.00 Trolley 91.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 Day 1 1157.90 1252.40 1252.40 1296.80 1420.40 1716.00 Total Evening 172.20 170.90 170.90 170.90 170.90 170.90 TOTAL 1 1330.10 1423.30 1423.30 1467.70 1591.30 1886.90 Draft Final Report 142 C Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Tables 7-3 and 7-4 show revenue hours for Mondays through Thursdays as well as for Fridays, respectively. Hours, as miles, are broken down by route,plan year, and time of day. Table 7-5:Revenue Hours-Mondays through Thursdays Base Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year Route 1 Day 11.27 11.00 11.00 11.00 17.00 23.00 Evening No Service Route 2 Day 12.28 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 Evening 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Route 3 Day 12.22 11.00 11.00 11.00 17.00 23.00 Evening 2.28 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Route 4 Day 22.79 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 24.00 Evening 4.85 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Route 5 Day 24.40 24.94 24.94 1 24.94 24.94 24.94 Evening 1.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Route 6 Day N/A 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 Evening 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Day 0.78 Route 6a Evening 10.00 Discontinued Route 6b Day 10.00 0.87 Discontinued Evening Route Day 0.00 Discontinued 6a/b Evening 4.42 Crosstown Day N/A 10.00 Evening 0.00 Trolley 5.50 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 Day 115.61 110.19 110.19 110.19 122.19 145.19 Total Evening 14.79 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 TOTAL 130.40 125.19 125.19 125.19 137.19 160.19 Draft Final Report 143 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 7-6:Revenue Hours-Fridays Base Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year Route 1 Day 11.27 11.00 11.00 11.00 17.00 23.00 Evening No Service Route 2 Day 12.28 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 Evening 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Route 3 Day 12.22 11.00 11.00 11.00 17.00 23.00 Evening 2.28 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Route 4 Day 23.15 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 24.00 Evening 4.85 4.00 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 Route 5 Day 24.40 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 24.94 Evening 1.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Route 6 Day N/A 4.50 4.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 Evening 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Day 8.90 Route 6a/b Evening 4.42 Discontinued Day Crosstown 0.00 Evening N/A 10.00 Trolley 9.00 10.49 10.49 10.49 10.49 10.49 Day 101.22 108.93 108.93 114.93 126.93 149.93 Total Evening 14.79 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 TOTAL 116.01 123.93 123.93 129.93 141.93 1 164.93 Vehicle Requirements The service plan presented here requires nine vehicles in the first year, and one vehicle for the trolley. Two additional vehicles are available for peak service to respond to crowding on buses or to maintain route schedules. This is the same number of vehicles as the current operation. However, more locations are afforded service (e.g., San Luis Obispo Airport) and the system is simpler and easier to comprehend for occasional or first time users. This plan also provides more frequent service to certain portions of the city versus what is operated today. The implementation schedule allows for smaller increases in service in subsequent years in order to manage costs. The implementation plan for year 2 does not add any vehicles. The additional Friday services proposed for year 3 will not have an impact in the peak vehicle requirement. Year 4 will require 2 additional vehicles, one to provide additional service on Route 1 and anther for additional service on Route 3. Year 5 improvements will require an additional vehicle to provide service on the cross-town route. Draft Final Report 144 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Long Term Issues As part of the planning process for this Short Range Transit Plan, we have also identified several long term strategic issues which should be considered as part of future planning efforts. These are as follows: SLORTA Coordination — Coordination with the RTA was a precept used in the draft route recommendations; schedule coordination should be addressed as a near term issue, specifically when the new timetables are designed for year 1 implementation with a priority setting as to which SLO local routes warrant schedule coordination with RTA the most. This is because both operators provide service within the City of San Luis Obispo. However, SLO Transit provides local circulation within the city and SLORTA provides regional connections. As these two operators serve different purposes, a policy that should be pursued is closer cooperation in terms of schedules, fare media, and marketing immediately. This should help increase awareness of region-wide transit and improve the convenience of transfers between the two systems. Coordinating transfers is important however it must balance the needs of the schedules for both SLO Transit and SLORTA operations. New Corridors and Areas — Future service corridors might include the Oceanaire Drive/Laguna Lakes area as well as any other possible "crosstown" corridors. Although the corridor connecting Cuesta College with San Luis Obispo is important, it is a regional corridor best served by SLORTA. Chorro Street north of downtown is another corridor that in the future may warrant bus service to connect to downtown. As the city grows and develops available land, as well as annexing any new areas, transit services should be considered to improve mobility in these new areas. Park-and-Ride Lot Locations — The proposed park-and-ride lot at Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. Route 101 would best be served by SLORTA Route 10, which serves the South Higuera Street corridor. A long term park-and-ride location might be Highland drive at State Route 1, which would be served both by SLORTA and the modified SLO Transit Route 5. Park and ride should be implemented at this location if adequate land is available. Downtown Transfer Center— In the future, any planning efforts for a new off- street transfer center in downtown San Luis Obispo should consider the need to accommodate articulated buses at such a facility. In addition, a future facility might also need to accommodate intercity bus services. Draft Final Report 145 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Public Outreach Preliminary route recommendations were presented to bus riders on Thursday September 111, 2008. A total of 67 riders made comments regarding the modifications to the bus routes. Many of the comments were supportive of the service adjustments however, a number of people voiced concerns about the new route network. Based on the comments route modifications were made. Below is a summary of the comments. • Having two routes serving Poly is good • Service is needed to Suburban at Tank Farm Rd to access homes, Food 4 Less, and Trader Joes—some people did mention that they are ok with service on RTA but would rather have SLO Transit service • RTA service can work if schedule coordination and fare coordination is in place— there is a major issue that SLO Transit buses leave 2 minutes before RTA buses arrive • People like service to the airport as well as having 2 way service on a single route on Broad and Johnson • There may be an issue with bus stop spacing. More frequent bus stops on certain routes will make it easier for people to not rely on riding around a loop to get to downtown • One reason people take RTA on Higuera Street is to get to the train station which would be solved with modification to route 2 • Marigold Center will still be well served which is good • People like the train station on route 2 • People on Higuera would like bus or pedestrian access to Madonna Plaza Public meetings were held at City Hall, in the City Council Chamber, to allow members of the public to comment and ask questions regarding the proposed plan. The meetings were held on November 13d, 2008 from 9:00 am 12:00 pm, and from 2:00 pm to 7:00pm. An additional meeting was held on November 141, 2008 from 8:00 am to 9:30 am.. These meetings were advertised on the radio, in print media, and on buses. A total of 8 people made attended and asked questions regarding the bus routes. The questions all related to when the new routes will be implemented and what affect the new schedules have on trips they routinely make. Draft Final Report 146 C Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Ridership Estimates This section presents the estimated annual ridership for the five years of this plan. The modified route network will affect ridership on all SLO Transit routes except the Trolley. Below are the assumptions used for estimating annual ridership for each route: • Ridecheck data was used to distribute ridership from existing routes to the proposed routes, as well as by time of day • Ridership changes were calculated based on frequency changes using a -0.37 elasticityZ applied to time routes and time periods when frequency improves from 40 minutes to 30 minutes, as well as routes that change from 40 minutes to 60 minutes. The same elasticity is assumed for future years when peak period frequency for certain routes improves from 60 minutes to 30 minutes • A fare elasticity of-0.293 applied universally to ridership for fare increases, which is consistent with the Simpson/Curtin Rule • Background ridership growth of 2% per year assumed based on average ridership growth excluding the year that Cal Poly instituted free transit with a student identification card • A modest 10 passengers per hour for the new cross-town route The resulting ridership estimates for each route Table 7-7. This table shows the total ridership for each year, as well as the change from year to year. The ridership estimates are conservative to ensure that higher than expected revenues are not predicted to come from the farebox. This table shows that in most years ridership will increase based on service changes. The only year that ridership does not increase is in year 1 when a fare increase will occur. The range of increased ridership is between 2.5% and 5.0% depending on the service changes for the given year. Table 7-7:Ridership Projection Route Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Route 1 50,453 48,589 55,565 56,373 66,182 77,027 Route 2 87,469 217,588 221,940 226,379 233,034 235,555 Route 3 108,717 90,287 92,093 93,935 105,389 122,596 Route 258,063 246,248 251,172 256,196 263,732 266,585 Route 5 260,732 255,680 1 260,794 266,010 271,330 274,266 Route 6 0 93,023 94,884 124,576 131,179 132,598 Route 6a 92,046 0 0 0 0 0 Route 6b 102,998 0 0 0 0 0 Trolley 27,164 27,209 27,753 28,308 28,874 29,451 Cross-town 0 0 0 0 0 25,500 Total Ridership 987,642 978,624 1,004,200 1,051,776 1,099,719 1,138,079 Ridership Change -0.91% 2.61% 4.74% 4.56% 3.49% Z From Patronage Impact of Changes in Transit Fares and Services,US Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 1980 3 From Patronage Impact of Changes in Transit Fares and Services,US Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 1980 Draft Final Report 147 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo 8. Financial Plan The following presents the operating financial plan for service modifications that are proposed to address issues identified in the San Luis Obispo Transit System (SLO Transit) Short Range Transit Plan. The financial plan is based on the final service plan assumptions for revenue hours, revenue miles and peak vehicles. These assumptions are presented in Table 8-1. Table 8-1:Service Plan Assumptions Revenue Revenue Peak Hours Miles Vehicles Base Year 34,254 389,636 12 Year 1 34,800 406,743 12 Year 2 35,960 417,995 12 Year 3 362 266 420,260 12 Year 4 40,506 463,730 14 Year 5 46,266 540,506 15 One of the underlying assumptions for implementation is that the number of peak vehicles will not change for the first three years of operation. One additional vehicle will be added in the fourth year and two more in the last year. These vehicles are added to accommodate the increase in the number of revenue hours and revenue miles operated in those years. As will be shown later in this section, this will have significant impact on SLO Transit's operating costs in those years. Baseline Unit Costs The baseline unit costs were developed using based on hourly costs famished by the City of San Luis Obispo that state hourly costs for the purposes of TDA reporting. The unit cost is $77.08 per revenue service hour in the base year. The operating cost was escalated using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical workers (CPI- W) for the West region for the 10-year period from 1998 through 2007. The average annual percentage change in the CPI-W from 1998 through 2007 was calculated at 3.2 percent per year. This factor was then applied to the baseline operating costs to develop operating costs for the entire five year period. Operating Cost Projections The escalated operating cost was used to develop operating costs projections for the base year and the succeeding five years. The unit costs were then applied to the projected revenue hours to get the corresponding cost per hour. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 8-2. Draft Final Report 148 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo As shown in this table, the operating costs increase annually due to the growth in the level of service. Most of this growth occurs in Year 4 and Year 5 when revenue hours are projected to increase by 11.7 and 14.2 percent,respectively. Operating costs increase between 4.1 and 6.6 percent annually during Years 1 through 3. In Years 4 and 5, costs increase more than 15 percent in each year. Over the five year period, operating costs are projected to increase by more than $1.8 million(58 percent) over the base year. Table 8-2:Operating Cost Projections Base Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Revenue Hours 34,254 34,800 35,960 36,266 40,506 46,266 Cost per Hour $77.08 $79.54 $82.09 $84.71 $87.41 $90.21 Total Cost $2,640,298 $2,767,992 $2,951,956 $3,072,093 $3,540,629 $4,173,656 Annual Change 4.84% 6.65% 4.07% 15.25% 17.88% Funding This section presents funding projected by source. Right now the funding situation at all levels is uncertain based on revenue shortfalls for most funding providers. Most of the funding sources and levels are based on historical funding sources and amounts projected by SLOCOG. Table 8-3 presents the expected funding by source. The final line presents the difference between the annual cost and revenue that is projected. Cost differences may be made up by increased local funding, fare changes, or reductions in services. Table 8-3:Expected Funding Levels Base Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Annual Cost $2,640,298 $2,767,992 $2,951,956 $3,072,093 $3,540,629 $4,173,656 Federal Funding $600,000 $618,000 $636,540 $655,636 $675,305 $695,564 State Funding STA $52,655 $52,655 $52,655 $53,971 $55,321 $56,704 Local Fundis LTF) $1,085,830 $1,070,798 $1,055,315 $1,071,105 $1,087,052 $1,103,154 RTA Contribution $501,068 $516,100 $531,583 $547,531 $563,956 $580,875 Investment&Properties Revenues $4,900 $5,000 $5,100 1 $5,200 $5,300 $5,400 Other Revenues $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Fares $522,301 $541,533 $561,528 $582,318 $603,937 $626,419 Total Revenue Sources $2,768,754 $2,806,086 $2,844,721 $2,917,761 $2,992,871 $3,070,116 Capital Cost of Contracting $84,000 $88,200 $92,610 ($97,241) ($102,103 $107,208 Total Funding Available $2,684,754 $2,717,886 $2,752,111 $2,820,520 $2,890,768 1 $2,962,908 Funding Balance $44,456 $50,106 1 $199,845 $251,573 1 $649,861 1 $1,210,748 Draft Final Report 149 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Opportunities to Reduce Cost The above financial plan is based on historical funding levels. Funding realities may lead to less transit funding available over the next few years. This may require certain decisions be made with regard to implementation of services. One recent development that may help with funding of SLO Transit service is findings of the Regional Fare Study and revenue sharing for passengers who use both SLORTA and SLO Transit services. Below are actions that can be taken to mitigate the loss of funding. • Renegotiate with Cal Poly regarding_student access to transit— Cal Poly students, who ride SLO Transit buses for free utilizing student ID cards, are major users of the system. Due to the utility of SLO Transit to Cal Poly, SLO Transit should work with Cal Poly to increase revenues collected from Cal Poly sources to fund service. Working with Cal Poly, other sources may be found such as a transit line item on the student activity fees. This will raise additional revenue to support SLO Transit services. • Year 1 provide 60 minute service on routes that have 30 minute service— In year 1 there are a number of routes that are proposed to have 30 minute service. These include routes 2, 4, 5, and 6. This high frequency of service is designed to provide adequate service to Cal Poly while ensuring that the rest of the San Luis Obispo community has access to these routes. One way to cut costs is to reduce service on any or a combination of these four routes. If any of these routes are cut, priority should be given to maintain service on trips that serve high volumes of passengers. Strategically reducing service on these routes should save revenue and have very little impact on ridership. Time of day ridership on these routes should be monitored to ensure that remaining trips are not overburdened. • Defer future year recommendations — Most of the future year recommendations add service to the SLO Transit routes. If funding is not available to provide service these service additions should be deferred to future years when additional funding for transit expansion may be available. If the funding situation is reversed and funding levels are higher than anticipated elements of the plan can be accelerated. Draft Final Report 150 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo 9. Final Plan Elements The final plan elements describe the resources that are necessary, beyond operating resources, to support the implementation of this plan over the next five years. The three main resources are described as the capital plan, the marketing plan, and management plan. The capital plan describes physical assets that need to be purchased to execute the plan such as buses, stops, and shelters. The marketing plan describes the marketing efforts and strategies that should be pursued to build ridership. The management plan describes the management resources that will be necessary as part of the plan. Capital plan The Capital Plan describes the physical items that are needed for the implementation of the plan. The primary capital item is buses that are used for service. Other elements include Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), bus stops, and bus stop shelters. This capital plan responds to the needs of the proposed network. Revenue Vehicle Fleet Updated fleet information was provided for determining the fleet needs as part of the capital plan. The current SLO Transit fleet is currently 15 revenue vehicles. This includes one trolley vehicle that is brand new, two 30 foot low-floor vehicles, two 30 foot high-floor vehicle, four 35 foot high-floor vehicles, three 40 foot high-floor vehicles, and three 40 foot low-floor vehicles. The current capital plan/vehicle replacement schedule phases in vehicle replacement purchases. In early 2009 SLO Transit will receive six new low-floor buses; four 40 foot buses and 2 35 foot buses. In 2010 four 35 foot high floor vehicles will be replaced, and in 2013 three 40 foot low-floor vehicles will be replaced. This maintains 15 revenue vehicles throughout the life of the plan. These vehicles are intended to replace older vehicles in the fleet that have reached the end of their useful lives. The recommended spares ratio for SLO Transit is 15 to 20%. Since the Trolley service operates during time periods when the peak number of vehicles are in operation and is included as part of the peak requirements. The current year peak vehicle requirement is 10 vehicles. SLO Transit currently adds 2 peak vehicles to cover overcrowding and late trips during certain time periods, increasing the peak requirement to 12 vehicles. SLO Transit currently has a 25% spares ratio. Years 1 though 3 require the same 12 peak vehicles. Year 4 requires 14 peak vehicles. In year 5 the peak requirement is for 15 peak vehicles. Based on the need to maintain a desirable spares ratio 2 additional buses will be needed in year 4 and 1 additional bus will be needed in year 5. The Trolley service, which recently received a new vehicle, will need an additional vehicle to serve as a backup vehicle. This backup trolley vehicle will replace a 1984 trolley vehicle which has reached the end of its useful lige. Draft Final Report 151 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City ofSar Luis Obispo Bus Stops and Shelters The proposed route network will alter the location of a number of bus stops and shelters. Some people made comments that bus stops are too far apart in some locations. If safe space can be found, bus stops should be located based on the standard of every other block in core areas and outside of the core bus stops should be evenly spaced with 4 or 5 bus stops per mile at safe locations. This will result in the need to remove, add, and move stop locations. The following paragraphs state the need for bus stop benches, ticket kiosks and shelters. Benches should be provided at as many bus stops as possible. However, priority should be given to stops that have a large number of senior citizens boarding. Space constraints may preclude the placement of a bench, as there needs to be adequate right of way available for passengers to access the bench and not block the sidewalk. Ticket kiosks,, where passengers would be able to purchase fare media, should be provided at the highest ridership bus stops where the general public use services. Ticket kisosk should also be located at stops near major generators. Ticket kiosks are not needed at Cal Poly since the majority of passengers at Cal Poly pay using their student identification cards. Stops that would benefit from ticket kiosks include the Downtown Transit Center, Madonna Plaza, Laguna Village, and the Amtrak station. Stops can be determined based on data on Table 9-1. Shelters should be at bus stops that have more than 25 boardings per day. Many of the stops that have over 25 boarding passengers do have shelters, however, a number do not. The current capital program has money programmed for bus stop improvements that should be used for stop modifications and amenities. Based on the ridecheck survey the bus stops presented on Table 9-1 should have shelters with priority given to add shelters to stops that currently do not have them: Draft Final Report 152 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Table 9-1:Bu.Psr Stops with Over 25 Passenger Boardings 't Y` J "k'J' ✓ y.H ..rd'� h 't k'Fy, 4.'+1 >K �'6".Y ` '�,. } int �•M. v ' ; J ,'StopL`ocahou 'sir 4vv� i+� ` Q�Bo`ute�; V' B08raiOgs j•SFU i �i4�PC��r3iA Cal Poly Mott Gym 4,6a, 6b 936 Downtown Transit Center 1,2,3,4,5,6b 764 Cal Poly Union 5 764 Ramona at Palomar 4,6a 240 Cal Poly Ag Science 6a 209 Cal Poly Graphic Arts 5,6b 205 Grand at Abbott 5 204 Ramona at Tassa'ara 4,6a 97 Mill at Grand 5 91 Los Osos VaUey Road at Laguna Village 4 89 Mill at Johnson 5,6b 86 Los Osos Valley Road at Madonna 4, 5 84 La Entrada at Del Norte 4,6a 74 Mill at California 5,6b 74 Los Osos Valley Road at LagunaLane 4 69 Highland at Cuesta 1,6a' 67 Foothill at Chorro 4,6a 65 Los Osos Valley Road at Descanso 4 56 Los Osos Valley Road at Oceanaiie 4 56 Cal Poly Graphic Airs 4,6a 53 Cal Poly Mustang Stadium 5 46 Santa Barbara at Church 5 45 Orcutt at Laurel 1,3 44 Mill at Santa Rosa 4,6b 42 Prado Day Center 2 42 Santa Rosa at Buchon 5 39 Madonna Plaza Promenade 4,5 38 Cal Poly Vista Grande 4,6b 34 Patricia at Foothill 1,6a 34 Casa at Murray6a 31 South at Parker(Greyhound) 5 31 lEghland at Mount Bishop 6a 28 Santa Rosa at Leff 5 28 Amtrak Station 5 27 Madonna Road at Madonna Plaza 4,5 27 Patricia at Highland 6a 26 Foothill at University Square 5 25 Madonna at Oceanaire 5 25 Intelligent Transportation Systems For Intelligent Transportation Systems three items are proposed in this plan. First is an Automatic Vehicle Locator System(AVL). The second item is a new radio system The third item is a new farebox system These items will allow for improved customer experience, improve fare collection, and improve communication between the operating base and the individual buses. The current capital program does have IT allocations. Specific IT items are not identified in the capital program however the projects listed Draft Final Report 153 1 -ti Short.Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo below are eligible. The prioritization of the projects should be prioritized based on available funding and the useful life of the current assets. SLO Transit should procure a new Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) system. A Global Positioning System (GPS) based AVL would be useful to replace the current EDAPS system. This will allow for real time information on bus locations that can be transmitted to dispatch,'presented on the internet, and at major bus stops. This combined with a DR600 Annunciator program will allow for automatic bus stop announcements without the need for drivers to call out bus stops. Along with the implementation of an AVL system, the current EDAPS arrival time information monitors should be replaced with real-time bus arrival monitors. This study will not propose specific bus stops as funding will determine the number of monitors will be based on the availability of funding, however, there are a number of guidelines to follow for placing these monitors. First, the current EDAPS displays should be replaced with real-time monitors. Besides the current locations of EDAPS monitors, the real-time bus arrival monitors should be placed at route time points. Ridership would determine the candidates for real-time bus arrival monitors. . A new radio system should be purchased for SLO Transit. The radio system will allow for improved communication between the buses and the base. This will allow for drivers to report incidents, improve response times to such incidents, as well as communicating transfer requests to hold connecting buses. A farebox upgrade should be pursued. While the fareboxes currently in use are in good working order and are able to process fare types, these fareboxes should be upgraded to allow for a single fare structure throughout the county. This will allow for improved interconnectivity between SLO Transit and other transit providers, allowing SLO Transit buses to accept other pass types, and properly register the number of passengers that transfer between SLO Transit and other providers. Safety and Security There are a number of safety and security items that should be implemented to enhance SLO Transit safety and security of city property. First of all, the AVL system mentioned above would serve a safety and security function as AVL will allow for emergency responders, as well as transit sta$ to know the exact location of a bus when an incident occurs. Another item is video cameras onboard buses to record any incidents that may occur. Cameras should also be placed at major transit facilities such as the bus depot and the Downtown Transit Center in order to protect city property. Security fencing should be provided at the bus depot to protect buses during the overnight periods. Draft Final Report 154 a , Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Marketing Plan The marketing plan relates mostly to the public information that is provided to passengers. SLO Transit already provides a good system map and schedule for the public, and these maps are readily available. Cal Poly students are aware that they can use their student identification cards for free travel on SLO Transit buses. Route information is provided on bus stops. Marketing and outreach efforts will need to be undertaken when the new route network is implemented.. The public will need to be educated about the route changes in advance of implementation so they are aware of when the new services will go into effect and how the routing changes will affect them. The SRTP and route approval process includes a large scale public participation process that educated the public about these changes. San Luis Obispo public transit staff should use all resources available to publicize the new route network including website, brochures on the bus, and any other means to have regular contact with riders: New route maps should be posted at major bus stops prior to the implementation of new services. Contact should be made with various local media sources including print media, radio media, and television to inform the public on the route changes, and guide the public to city staff to respond to questions regarding the route network. Marketing efforts should be geared to joint marketing efforts between SLO Transit and SLORTA to increase awareness of regional transit operations. This could include the other operators in the region. Currently there is a countywide fare study that will look at fare categories and integration throughout San Luis Obispo County. The results of this study may provide the opportunity for a greater fare cooperation which will be beneficial for joint marketing. Management Plan The current arrangement for management of SLO Transit system is a transit manager, who is supported by an assistant. The transit manager falls under the public works department. This structure is sufficient for the implementation of the plan and should continue. The contractor should continue to provide the same operation and financial reports to the city as part of their contract. Draft Final Report Louise Tustice aMOUNCIL LJ CDD DIR RED FILE 3000 Augusta, t#2t8 p_��t0 SIN DIR — MEETING AGENDA 9 [3ATTCRNEY C'FIRE CHIEF 018 DATIE ITEM #�� San Luis Obispo GA 83401 2tLEPK/0PIQ Z'p©LCE CHF ❑ DEPT BEADS Zj 1=c DIP Vl� — UTILDIR �� L�7 Wf�t7IR April 27, 2009 — ^ nmEs CouNCiL �uTY M6� City Clerk C�zk Attn: Mayor Romero and City Council Members 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Note: PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO CITY COUNCIL FOR MAY 5, 2009 MEETING Agenda Item —4:00 p.m. Adoption of Short Range Transit Plan Dear Mayor and Council Members: Attached herewith are communications and supporting documents with regard to the above-referenced matter. Route 1 —The rerouting of this run will eliminate the choice and convenience those in particular at Judson Terrace Homes/Lodge have at the present time. Many of our residents are unable to walk the two or three blocks or cross Laurel Lane as proposed and would not be able to access Scolari's, Rite Aid and the surrounding area to include hospitals and doctors in a timely manner. On the following days at 10:35 a.m., Route 1's ridership was such: January 27— 13 riders and one wheelchair January 29—25+, wheelchair, woman with baby and stroller, woman with large oversized shopping cart, students, seniors, homeless and other workers. Filled to capacity with standing room only. February 12—Six and a wheelchair. February 20—25+, two mothers with babies and strollers, seniors, homeless and other workers. Week of March 23—Ridership especially in the morning has increased and Route 1 is usually packed to standing room only capacity. April 2— 12 riders with students, seniors, workers and a family with a baby and stroller. Presently, Route 1 runs on an hourly basis. Should we miss this particular bus, we are able to access Route 3 which may take a little longer but still allows us a choice. Page 2 Route 3 —The increase of this route from 40 minutes to 60 would be an actual hardship on those boarding at Judson Terrace. The proposal includes going out. to the airport before returning to the Judson Terrace boarding area and is based on the installation of a traffic light at the entrance to the airport. This will eliminate the convenience presently in effect of utilizing either Route 1 or 3. In conclusion — Leave Route 1 as it is or route it to include easy access for the many seniors, apartment residents and YMCA summer field trips boarding on Augusta. Reroute Route 3 to include the airport but the stops should remain as they are now. After speaking with John Webster, Transit Manager, this morning, he advised me that Route 1 would go clockwise rather than counterclockwise (see e-mail attachment). He also mentioned that a Public Meeting for informational purposes would be held after the approval/adoption of-the plan by the Council on May 5. Unfortunately, that Public Meeting would be too late to make the required and necessary changes. Thank you for your attention. ery truly ours, Louise B. tice (805)594-1914 r January 9, 2009 To: County Board of Supervisors and SLOCOG— San Luis Obispo Council of G ."mments p RE: The elimination of Transportation Route#1 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to voice our concerns of over the proposed deletion of Route#1. The Route#1 bus stop that we use stops in front of Judson Terrace Homes Retirement Community, 3000 Augusta Street. Judson Terrace is Low Income Housing for senior citizens. This bus route is very important for the residents at Judson Terrace. Many of us, including me and my husband are no longer able to drive and the bus stop makes it very easy for us to get around the City of San Luis Obispo. However, if this bus route is eliminated, it would make a great hardship for us and the residents at Judson Terrace. I am 81 years of age and I am blind with diabetes. My husband, 85 years of age, also has physical problems. This same scenario is similar for many of the residents at Judson Terrace. However, if we have to use a different bus route, we would be forced to leave our homes 1.5 to 2.0 hours or more ahead of time just to get to our doctors office, which is normally a very short trip. Because we are elderly and many of us are not in the best of health, being away from home and traveling for many hours ata time is very hard on our health. I occasionally have to get to the doctors office very early for fasting blood work. This is too long a period of time for someone with diabetes to have to wait for transportation to bring them home again. Also, Route 1 is not a bus route that is seldom used. Every time we use this route, the bus is always very crowded. You may recommend the Para-transit or the Runabout as a more direct form of transportation. However, because we are low income senior citizens, using these two transit companies becomes very costly. Occasionally we may use these forms of transportation, but the cost is too much for us to use all the time. The loss of Route 1 would be a hardship on senior citizens. We ask for the benefit of ourselves and the residents at Judson Terrace Homes that Route 1 not be eliminated. Sincerely, Dorisan� i er 3000 Augusta Street #/5:3 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Page 1 of 1 January 13,2009 To Whom It May Concern: Recently,I contacted Louis Justice to respond to a request for information about our transportation program. She asked me to explain the scope of services we provide. I told her that Community Health Centers(CHC)provides transportation to,and from our clinics as a courtesy to its patients in order for them to have quality medical care. She told me that she was distressed because the San Luis Obispo City bus route that served her area was going to be eliminated. She stated that many people in her area are dependent on the bus route to go to the pharmacy and the grocery store. I understand Ms.Justice's concern for her area neighbors. While we can provide help in our capacity to get CHC patients to our doctors,it is only a piece of the puzzle for them. It is unfortunate that these people will be left without necessary services as they desperately need to get to the grocery,and other places of business. Please consider the populations that will be affected by such a change as many people in the Augusta St. area are without any means of transportation and reconsider your decision. Sincerely, Patty Starr CHC Transportation d ` httpJ/mail.google.com/a/chccc.org/?ui--2&ik— t—ccle18369b&view=a &tth=l ledl7125befff... 1/13/2009 Umml - srtp comment Page I c G M- Louise Justice <gram Ibj@gmail.coi srtp comment 1 message Webster, John <jwebster@sIocity.org> Fri, Jan 23, 2009. at 1:13 F To: gramlbj@gmail.com Cc: "Bochum, Tim" <bochum@sIocity.org>, stuart.geltman@aecom.com Dear Louise, Thanks for your recent comments and I will do my best to follow-up on our telephone conversation this morning. One point to keep in mind is that despite this being a SRTP update we are a long way from implementing any of the proposals and would hold additional public hearings prior to implementing the recommendations. Regarding the SRTP map, (pages 130 & 13 1)at the last MTC meeting D. Gregg Doyle requested that the final draft include a recommendation for Route#I to utilize a clockwise routing along Laurel instead of the counterclockwise initial recommendation. You are correct that RT#I would not go as far as Laurel Lane Market as it would make a right turn onto Southwood Drive. The route#3 would be returning back into your area where now it continues into SLO via Broad Street so service is not reduced in this area. Final timing and service of all routes would greatly depend on the availability of funding as the recent cutbacks of State funds are having a definite impact and-challenge just to keep the existing service levels unchanged. Fares: The present crisis and expected shortage of State funding for Transit Operations will be addressed at a special MTC fare modification meeting on February 18th 2009 and was not anticipated when the SRTP draft recommendations were sent by the consultant and thus the different rates in the draft versus the MTC agenda table. The final draft that will eventually go to the Mayor and.Council will have updated recommendations as part of the document and include any fare modifications. Gold Pass: Transit receives 100% of the revenue from the Gold Pass program and we have a formal contract with Cal Poly thru June of 2011. Cal Poly also provided an additional $30,000 last FY to off set higher than expected fuel prices. As we discussed the SRTP is not a document that is set in stone and is subject to additional public input when recommendations are being implemented. I also want to tell you that I really appreciate all voices and opinions regarding how"YOUR"transit system should be operated as it keeps us focused on the goal of continually trying to improve an already very good transit system. Talk to you soon. John tp://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=c54d8e3l5c&view=pt&search=inbox&-th=l I fD5573fdaf33b9 1/23/2005 Umall - srtp comment Page 2 c John P.•Webster Sr. Transit Manager City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,California 93401 (805)781-7121 Fax: (805)781-7563 -- -------- - -------- ------- P://Mail-google.COM/mail/?ui=2&ik--c54d8e3l5c&view=pt&search=inbox&th=l I fD5573fdaf33b9 December 12, 2008 Louise Justice, Resident of Judson Terrace Homes 3000 Augusta, #218 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Re: Mass Transportation Committee Meeting of December 9, 2008 1 was in attendance at the above-referenced meeting and my observations as I understood them are as follow: Routes 1 and 3 will be reconfigured as they are now proposed to accommodate the ridership in the Augusta/Laurel Lane area. A fare increase is to be considered in the January 2009 meeting for the citizens of San Luis Obispo. There will not be further negotiation with Cal Poly to increase revenue. Even though on page 136 of the Draft Final Report, it states in the first paragraph: "Concurrent with this fare change, SLO Transit should work with Cal Poly to increase the amount of revenue collected associated with providing Cal Poly students with unlimited rides." If I am incorrect in my observations, please let me know. My concern is that much of the bus traffic will be geared toward accommodating Cal Poly students and not the citizens/seniors/other students and workers of San Luis Obispo. Further, please reconsider the free Gold Pass that is issued to employees of the downtown area - this could generate more revenue if they indeed had to pay. Thank you for your attention. Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Maintain and Improve Service to Emerging Corridors — An important planning precept was to continue to serve or to provide new service to emerging corridors in the San Luis Obispo area. Specifically, the existing corridor along Los Osos Valley Road and the corridor south of Tank Farm Road towards the airport were important considerations. Fare Integration — The final planning precept involved fares. In order to most effectively.minimize duplication between the SLO Transit and SLORTA systems —and to,by extension, extend the geographic coverage provided by transit service in the area—the issue of an integrated fare system should be considered For any transit user, .the SLO Transit and SLORTA systems should essentially be interchangeable, thus allowing them access to locations on either transit system throughout San Luis Obispo. This can be done by coordinating with SLORTA in terms of schedules, fare policy, and transfer policy, including a joint,fare media accepted by both operators. Route Modification Proposals Route 1 — This route would operate between Sierra Vista Hospital and Johnson/Southwood via Santa Rosa Street and Broad Street, operating through downtown. North of downtown this route would operate on Santa Rosa Street, Murray Street, Casa Street, and Foothill.Boulevard It will operate a terminal loop that goes west on Foothill Boulevard, south on Tassajara Street, east on Ramona Drive, and north on Broad Street back to Foothill Boulevard It would serve the Downtown Transfer Center via Mill and.Osos Streets,and would exitdowntown via the current Route 1 alignment on Palm, Nipomo and Marsh Streets. Route 1 would continue south along BrQAd Street to Orcutt Road with a terminal loop utilizing Orcutt Road, Johnson Ave,y4 bod Road, and Laurel Lane. The return trip northbound, Route 1 would return to northbound Broad Street using Orcutt Road It will operate along Broad Street and enter downtown via the current alignment of Route 3. It would again serve the Downtown Transfer Center via Mill and Osos Streets, and would then proceed westbound on Palm Street and northbound on Chorro Street. The modifications to Route 1 create a bi-directional corridor along Broad Street and, together with the proposed modifications.to Route 3, greatly simplify the service patterns in the southeastern portion of the service area. Ideally there will be a timed transfer along Laurel Lane between Routes 1 and 3. One roundtrip on Route 1 will be 9.8 revenue miles long and take approximately one hour. We anticipate one bus providing hourly service along Route 1. In future years an additional bus will be required to provide 30 minute service. Figure 7-2 presents the route map for the proposed Route 1. Draft Final Report 130 Short Rmige Transit Plan Update for the My ofSon Luis Obispo Figure 7-2:Proposed Route 1 city.ofsanWisomispo (lWrt Wg7h=si{ Plan gp&te Proposed Route 1 Y 15 s � i ry � o^xi t f ciii'X Ctms ,r F 2o's 0 tub rt f �' .`Y���✓/.�., 'I +� Route 2—The current S.LO Transit Route 2 will be greatly modified. SLO Transit Route 2 would be operated from the North Perimeter Drive on the Cal Poly campus to California Boulevard, and exiting the campus along the alignment of the current Route 6b. After serving the Downtown Transfer Center, Route 2 will utilize Palm Street to access Santa Rosa Street and proceed south to the Amtrak Station. Route 2 will continue onto Railroad Avenue and exit the station complex opposite.Upham Street. It will then utilize Santa Barbara Street and South Street to serve the current Greyhound Bus-Station. From the Greyhound Bus Station Route 2 will utilize Higuera Street to Los Osos Valley Road. The route will return north on Route 101 to Pardo Road and terminate at the Prado Day Center stop. Northbound, Route 2 will depart from the Prado Day Center and turn north on South Higuera Street. The route will operate along Higuera.Street to the current Greyhound Bus Station, deviating to serve Suburban Road. It will then utilize South and Santa Barbara Streets to enter the Amtrak Station parking lot opposite Upham Street. Route 2 will continue onto Railroad 'Avenue and Santa Rosa Street and utilize Mill and Osos Streets to serve the Downtown Transfer Center. It will depart downtown via Mill Street and will utilize California Boulevard to enter the Cal Poly campus via the alignment of Draft FbW Report ' 131 Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City ofSan Luis Obispo the current Route 6b. Route 2 will then operate to the route terminal on North Perimeter Road. The new Route 2 incorporates segments of the existing Routes 2, 4, 5 and 6b and serves to provide a bi-directional service between the center of the Cal Poly campus, downtown San Luis Obispo, and—with respect to intermodal connectivity—the Amtrak Station and the current Greyhound Bus Station. It also serves the Prado Day Center near its southern end. It should also be noted that the bus stop on Santa Barbara Street at Church Street would need to be moved only one block south to Upham Street to accommodate this service modification. In addition, although the southbound service along Buchon and Osos Streets presently served by Route 4 is eliminated, there are no bus stops (and thus no ridership) along this segment. One roundtrip on Route 2 will be 13.2 revenue miles long and take approximately 60 minutes. We anticipate two buses providing service every 30 minutes on Route 2. Figure 7-3 presents a map showing the proposed Route 2. Figure 7-3:Proposed Route 2 s�riLL�n.4oetspo �„wj , C Shoe Range TFaitsit 7-F Plan Update ',i._ k•, P foNhie Q r t� .. Proposed Route 2 - A. r'. 1 J N y 3.. -halo Rd..:.. RoWnd 7ka FM Rd Chy Limb t o w a YRo Draft Final Report 132 Short Range T rm df Plan Updotefor the City of San Luis Obispo Route 3—The modified Route 3 would operate from the Downtown Transfer Center and serve the Johnson Street corridor to the Johnson Street/Augusta Street couplet. It would then utilize Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road to Tank Farm Road, from which it would proceed south along Broad Street and utilize the San Luis Obispo Airport as a turn- around location. Service to the airport is dependant on the installation of a traffic signal at Aero Drive. Until this signal is installed Route 3 will turn left from Tank Farm Road onto Poinsettia Street and turn right Fuller Road and terminate at Broad Street and Fuller Road. The northbound route would return via Broad Street to Tank Farm Road and utlize the same streets as the southbound routing. Route 3 would enter downtown San Luis Obispo via the current alignment of northbound Route 1 and would exit downtown via the current alignment of southbound Route 3. Along with the proposed modifications to Route 1, the modifications to Route 3 greatly simplify the SLO Transit service patterns in the southeastern portion of the service area. The emerging employment corridor along Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and the airport is also served, and the airport provides for a convenient turn-around location for Route 3 as well. Ideally there will be a timed transfer along Laurel Lane between Routes 1 and 3. One roundtrip on Route 3 will take approximately one hour, and will travel 10.9 revenue miles. We anticipate one bus providing hourly service along Route 3. In future years an additional bus will be needed to provide 30 minute service. Figure 7-4 presents a map showing the proposed Route 3. Draft F1=1 Report 133 Short Range DwWt Plan Update for the CYty of San Luis Obispo Figure 74:Proposed Route 3 crt.Yof $p0 @ f I ShortRangelMrult �. Plan Update 4; Proposed Route 3x r z` .�.,W7 Aek Pum Rd P13•T=*ue7RaWhl t . -��PtlYmdrwa cy ter, o ars 43 wu. Route 4 and 5 — The new SLO Transit Route 4 and 5 will replace the current Routes 4 and 5, operating is a similar manner—a large loop in opposite directions. The new Route 5 will operate in a counter-clockwise direction (Le., serving the Cal Poly campus first upon departure from downtown San Luis Obispo), while the new Route 4 will operate in a clockwise direction similar to today's operation. This route will no longer serve the Amtrak Station, Santa.Rosa Street, and South Street, which will instead be served on Route 2. This route will instead operate on Higuera Street between Downtown and Madonna Road Route 4 will exit the Downtown Transfer Center utilizing Palm, Nipomo and Higuera Streets to directly access Higuera Street. Route 4 will then serve Madonna Road (and Madonna Plaza), Los Osos Valley Road, the Descanso Loop via Prefumo Canyon Road, Del Rio Avenue and Descanso Street and continue on into Foothill Boulevard. It will stay on Foothill Boulevard to Tassajarra and Ramona (once upgrades to the intersection are completed). Upon returning to Foothill Boulevard it will utilize the current alignment of Route 4 into the Cal Poly campus however it will utilize California Boulevard and North Perimeter Drive to serve the Cal Poly campus, and utilize Grand Street and Mill Street to access the Downtown Transfer Center. Route 4 will no longer Draft Final Report 134 Louise B. Justice 3000 Augusta, #218 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 I recently attended the Short Range Transit Plan meeting where I was informed that changes to Routes 1 and 3 were being considered. Route 1 and 3 service the Judson Terrace Homes/Lodge as well as many apartment residents and students. With the present plan, all have the option of using either one or both of these routes. Route 1 enables many of our residents to get to French.Hospital, the old General Hospital area, Scolari's for shopping or to doctors located in the vicinity and to return via Route 3 within a reasonable time period. It also permits those wishing to travel to Foothill Blvd. to remain on the bus and get to the University Plaza for shopping, health and other errands - returning on the same bus to the bus stop located at the entrance to Judson Terrace's parking lot. For the seniors who use this route, it is acceptable that the schedule is an hourly one because they can get Route 3's bus to return in a timely manner. For reasons in the past, the Route 1 bus runs only one way down Augusta due to the fact that parking is at a premium and parents are picking up/dropping off elementary school children. Change suggested is to eliminate Route 1 completely from this area. This is not a satisfactory nor acceptable solution. Route 3 permits those who have missed Route 1's bus or who wish to travel to another area - i.e. Marigold Center, Broad Street, etc.- and who can return to the Judson Terrace area via this route. Change suggested is to increase the time from 40 minutes to 60 minutes and use this one bus only for a two-way route along Augusta thus eliminating the possibility of getting to appointments etc. Please reconsider your proposals and give the Public a chance for input into them. i Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Maintain and Improve. Service to Emerging Corridors — An important planning precept was to continue to serve or to provide new service to emerging corridors in the San Luis Obispo area. Specifically, the existing corridor along Los Osos Valley Road and the corridor south.of Tank Farm Road towards the airport were important considerations. Fare Integration — The final planning precept involved fares. In order to most effectively minimize duplication between the SLO Transit and SLORTA systems -and to, by extension, extend the geographic coverage provided by transit service in the area—the issue of an integrated Are system should be considered. For any transit user, the SLO Transit and SLORTA systems should essentially be interchangeable, thus allowing them access to locations on either transit system throughout San Luis Obispo. This can be done by coordinating with SLORTA in terms of schedules, fare policy, and transfer policy, including a joint:fare„media accepted by both operators. I Route Modification Proposals Route 1 — This route would operate between Sierra Vista Hospital- and the Mangold I Center via Santa Rosa Street and Broad Street, operating through downtown. North of downtown this route would operate on Santa Rosa Street, Murray Street, Casa Street, and Foothill Boulevard. It will operate a terminal loop that goes west on Foothill Boulevard, south on Tassajara Street, east on Ramona Drive, and north on Broad Street back to Foothill Boulevard. It would serve the Downtown Transfer Center via Mill and Osos Streets, and would exit downtown via the current Route 1 alignment on Palm, Nipomo and Marsh Streets. Route 1 would continue south along Broad Street and.terminate at the Marigold Center shopping center on Industrial Way. The return trip northbound, Route I would operate east along-Industrial Way, north along Sacramento Drive, and west along Orcutt Street before retuning to northbound Broad Street. Along Broad Street and enter downtown via the current alignment of Route 3. It would again serve the Downtown Transfer Center via Mill and Osos Streets, and would then proceed westbound on Palm Street and northbound on Chorro Street. This route recommendation.is,contingent.on.the completion,of Sacramento-Drive.:-ve.::to:Or-cutt:Road: The modifications to Route 1 create a bi-directional corridor along Broad Street and, together with the proposed modification to Route 3, greatly simplify the service patterns in the southeastern portion of the service area. One roundtrip on Route 1 will be 9.7 revenue miles long and take approximately one hour. We anticipate one bus providing hourly service along Route 1. In future years an additional bus will be required to provide 30 minute service. Figure 6-2 presents the route map for the proposed Route 1. Draft Final Report 126 Slort Range Transit Plan Update for the City of Safi Luis Obispo Route 3 — The modified Route 3 would operate from the Downtown Transfer Center and serve the Johnson Street corridor to the Johnson Street/Augusta Street couplet. It would then utilize Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road to Tank Farm Road, from which it would proceed south along Broad Street and utilize the San Luis Obispo Airport as a turn- around location. Service to the airport is dependant on the installation of a traffic signal at Aero Drive. Until this signal is installed Route 3 will tum left from Tank Farm Road onto Poinsettia Street and tum right Fuller Road and terminate at Broad Street and Fuller Road. The northbound route would return via Broad Street to Tank Farm Road and utlize the same streets as the southbound routing. Route 3 would enter downtown San Luis Obispo via the current alignment of northbound Route 1 and would exit downtown via the current alignment of southbound Route 3. Along with the proposed modifications to Route 1, the modifications to Route 3 greatly simplify the SLO Transit service patterns in the southeastern portion of the service area. The emerging employment corridor along Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and the airport is also served, and the airport provides for a convenient turn-around location for Route 3 as well. One roundtrip on Route 3 will take approximately one hour,.and will travel 10.9 revenue miles. We anticipate one bus providing hourly service along Route 3. In future years an additional bus will be needed to provide 30 minute service. Figure 6-4 presents a map showing the proposed Route 3. Draft Final Report 129 s RECEIVED RED FILE MAY 0 5 209 - MEETING AGENDA DAT f s TEM # SLO CITY CLERK OUNCIL V *zrDD DIR From: Susan L. Rains [mailto:srains@calpoly.edu] CAO 4eFIN DIR Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:11 PM1 ItA CAO '�'FIRE CHIEF To: Webster,John TTORNEY �f PW DIR 13 Subject: RE: Send info for a council red file LERIVORIG 'R POLICE CHFEPT HEADS27REC DIR Ly L�La`tLCe, John, UTIL DIR - HR DIR CQWi!°c SII iPnle'7iJ`7 — __ During the SRTP process members of the public gave the MTC input regarding their concerns and questions. I felt that all issues were addressed and clamed for those individuals. Stakeholders had the opportunity to share thoughts and ideas through meetings with the consultants.There were public information sessions and input was sought by the consultants throughout the process.The consultants had challenges such as budget and changes at Cal Poly they had to deal with during the course of their work.They met the challenges and came up with good alternatives when needed. Although it was a long process, we ended up with a good workable plan for SLO Transit in the coming years. One of the things I like about the plan is that it can be phased in, as budget allows, in implementing some of the changes suggested. Susan Susan Rains Commuter and Access Services Coordinator University Police Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0140 (805) 756-6680 -Phone (805)756-7445-Fax In case of emergency-dial 9-1-1 Please visit our website at: www.police.calpoly.edu For news and safety tips call 756-NEWS