HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-2016 MTC Agenda PacketService Complaints: Complaints regarding bus service or routes are to be directed to the
Transportation Assistant at 781-7531. Reports of complaints/commendations are available to the
public upon request.
MISSION: The purpose of the Mass Transportation Committee is to assist with the ongoing public
transit program in the City and Cal Poly. As requested, the Committee provides advisory
recommendations and input to the Council regarding routes, schedules, capital projects, fares,
marketing and additional services.
ROLL CALL: James Thompson (Chair - Technical), Elizabeth Thyne (Vice Chair - Senior), Cheryl Andrus
(Cal Poly), Denise Martinez (Disabled), Michelle Wong (Student), John Osumi (Business), Louise Justice
(Member at Large), Diego-Christopher Lopez (Alternate) Heidi Harmon (Alternate)
PUBLIC COMMENT: 10 min.
At this time, the public is invited to address the Committee concerning items not on the agenda but are
of interest to the public and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Mass Transportation
Committee. Public comment is limited to three minutes per person. The Committee may not discuss or
take action on issues that are not on the agenda other than to briefly respond to statements or
questions, or to ask staff to follow up on such issues.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 4th, 2015 (Attachment 1)
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Selection of MTC RFP Observer 5 min.
2. SRTP Recommended Route Changes Presentation by LSC Inc. 90 min.
a. After RTAC is convened
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
3. Transit Manager Report
ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting will be held March 9, 2016
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
Agenda
Mass Transportation Committee
Ludwick Center, 864 Santa Rosa St, San Luis Obispo
Wednesday, January 13th, 2016 – 2:30 pm
Note special
location and
new time
ACTION ITEMS:
Agenda Item 1: Selection of MTC RFP Observer
SLO Transit has issued an RFP for the Operations & Maintenance contract. A proposal
evaluation team has been created consisting of two City staff members, one SLOCOG staff
member and one CalPoly University staff member. There remains an opportunity for a MTC
member to volunteer and be nominated as an observer of the proposal evaluation process.
Staff Recommendation: (none)
Agenda Item 2: SRTP Recommended Route Changes Presentation by LSC Inc.
SLO Transit is in the process of conducting its joint Short Range Transit Plan. The plan includes
recommended route changes for the MTC’s consideration and discussion.
Staff Recommendation:
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Agenda Item 3: Transit Manager Report
General verbal presentation by the Transit Manager on relevant transit happenings, events and
stats.
Items for next meeting
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
The next meeting will be held: March 9th, 2016
ATTACHMENTS: (list all attachments)
1. Minutes of the Month December 4th, 2015 MTC meeting
G:\Transportation-Data\_Unsorted Stuff\Transportation\Transportation Committees\MTC Committee\FY 2014\5
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson James Thompson called the meeting to order at 1:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: James Thompson, Elizabeth Thyne, Cheryl Andrus, Denise Martinez, John Osumi,
Louise Justice, and Diego-Christopher Lopez
Public: Kevin Castro (Cal Poly), Mary Gardener (RTA), John Guyton (First Transit), Al
Rusco (First Transit), Eliane Wilson (SLOCOG), plus two additional public
members
Staff: Gamaliel Anguiano (Transit Manager), Megan Cutler (Transit Assistant)
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Thompson informed committee of the following:
Working Paper #4 of Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) not yet available from consultant
for public review
Purpose of special meeting was for introduction/review of Transit Manager’s
preliminary route concepts
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
COMMITTEE ITEMS
Transit Manager’s Special Report
Mr. Anguiano began meeting with PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Anguiano reviewed the Short
Range Transit Plan (SRTP) process and shared his personal planning philosophy that guides his
preliminary route concepts and any future system changes: (1) safety, (2) reliability, (3)
accessibility & convenience, and (4) efficiency.
Draft Minutes – Special Meeting
MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Ludwick Community Center, 864 Santa Rosa St, San Luis Obispo,
Friday, December 4th, 2015 – 1:00 pm
Mr. Anguiano introduced Transit Remix (contracted planning software) in order to review
preliminary route concepts.
Route 1: Current
Mr. Anguiano:
- Little productivity in upper Rte 1 area due to Rtes 4, 5, 6 servicing same area
Public Comments:
- None
Route 1: Alternatives A, B, C
Mr. Anguiano:
- Offering bi-directional service allows passengers to travel in both directions along route
- Route modifications could improve cost savings by approximately one half, shorter
route means greater reliability, minimizing delay, increasing efficiency, reliability, and
safety
- Route modification would require a transfer for those riding from lower area of current
Route 1 to Foothill area, formerly serviced by Route 1
- Changes to Route 1 require changes to Route 3
- Cost savings allow route to service Marigold Center
Comments:
- Mr. Thompson: Acknowledges if you live on the lower end of the route, furthest from
the Transit Center, bi-directional does not have the same benefit, allowing passengers
to travel more quickly to the Transit Center. Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that Mr.
Thompson makes a good point.
- Mr. Osumi: Questions if traffic conditions on Orcutt should b e taken into consideration.
Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that traffic engineers are aware of request for signalization
along Orcutt and are conducting analysis to evaluate whether signalization would
benefit particular intersections.
- Ms. Justice: Questions the Casa stop off Foothill near Sierra Vista where passengers get
off to go to doctors. Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that his goal is not to eliminate any
current service, but rather to preserve existing service. This may mean an existing stop
along one route is serviced by another route. Any change to Route 1 in the north near
Foothill is intended to be preserved by another route, such as Routes 4, 5, and 6.
- Mr. Thompson: Clarifies a passenger must get on the bus at the Transit Center to travel
from the southern portion of the City to the northern portion. Mr. Anguiano
acknowledges that transfers are required for all three Route 1 alternative scenarios. Hub
and spoke model is intended to bring riders to the Transit Center, allowing them to
transfer to the next bus to complete their trip.
- Ms. Wilson: Raises concern of buses going in both directions the whole way along Broad
when there are hardly any pedestrian crosswalks. Mr. Anguiano agrees and
acknowledges that, when determining the placement of a bus stop, we want to be sure
there is a crosswalk or protected light to ensure safety.
- Ms. Justice: Questions difficulty for passengers in the Laurel Lane area that use
wheelchairs, walkers, and canes. Mr. Anguiano reassures that there are alternative
possibilities considering Ms. Justice’s points. There is flexibility in all route changes. Mr.
Anguiano welcomes MTC input at January meeting.
- Mr. Lopez: Questions Remix data to the right of map, indicating 2 buses needed for
Route 1. Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that more data and tools are available within
Remix.
Route 2: Current
Route 2 & 4 Merger: Alternative A
Mr. Anguiano:
- Considers completion of Los Osos Valley Road bridge
- Connects South Higuera to Los Osos Valley Road
Route 2 & 4 Merger: Alternative B
Mr. Anguiano:
- Considers completion of Los Osos Valley Road bridge
Comments:
- Ms. Andrus: Questions whether service is cut out from Laguna Lake Middle School area.
Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that Alternative A addresses this concern and
acknowledges that we hope for there to be more middle school riders.
Route 3: Current
Mr. Anguiano:
- Clockwise service
- Unproductivity along Orcutt
- Perceived safety issue along Tank Farm. Passengers getting off buses traveling west
along Tank Farm are getting off on the undeveloped side of the street, forcing
individuals to cross the street to get to the neighborhood. Emphasizes that this is a
perceived safety issue that we have the opportunity to address since it was brought up.
Route 3: Alternative A
Mr. Anguiano:
- Reviews how Route 3 can supplement losses from Route 1.
- Service is reduced along Orcutt and Tank Fam
- Slightly more productive
- Addresses perceived safety issue. Route 1 alternative offers reverse service along Tank
Farm. However we may lose bi-directional service with this alternative.
Comments:
- Ms. Justice: Brings up point that housing developer along Orcutt is creating access road
to Orcutt and questions how we plan accordingly. Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that
there is flexibility in the service changes, given the fact that planned development can
only be assumed and not guaranteed. System changes address what the public needs
today.
- Ms. Wilson: Questions Broad, south of Orcutt at Sacramento Drive. Mr. Anguiano
acknowledges that Sacramento Drive does not offer protection for buses re -entering
Orcutt and traffic engineers have not yet determined necessity of signal at this
particular intersection.
- Mr. Osumi: Acknowledges no perceived loss in the clockwise direction along Route 3, so
design makes sense.
- Mr. Thompson: Requested copies of preliminary route changes in order to be able to
analyze in more detail.
Route 4: Current
Mr. Anguiano:
- Currently travel counterclockwise in large loop with many unproductive miles
Comments:
- Mr. Thompson: Questions horseshoe on Los Osos Valley Road. Mr. Anguiano
acknowledges passengers living in mobile home area were unable to travel to bus stop
along Los Osos Valley Road, so service is offered on this horseshoe, but not on every
loop.
- Ms. Gardner: Questions inefficiencies due to Laguna Lake Middle School students
traveling on route.
Route 4: Alternative A
Mr. Anguiano:
- Safe alternative
- Reduces exposure to Auto Park loop only to Route 4, not both Routes 4 and 5
Route 4: Alternative B
Route 5: Current
Comments:
- Mr. Thompson: Acknowledges people get off on Los Osos Valley Road and Foothill
before populated areas.
Route 5: Alternative A
Mr. Anguiano:
- Allows passengers to travel along same route to Cal Poly area, avoiding Grand Avenue
congestion, by approaching campus off of California.
Comments:
- Public: Questions if route alternative considers bus service frequency along Mill St. Mr.
Anguiano acknowledges that Route 4 alternatives reduce need for high bus frequency
on Mill St.
Route 6A: Current
Mr. Anguiano:
- Does not go to Transit Center
- Very productive miles
Route 6A: Alternative A
Comments:
- Andrus: Acknowledges that 6’s would be only buses servicing PAC area near new
student development.
Route 6B: Current
Route 6B: Alternative A
Committee/Public Comments
Mr. Thompson: Raises point that students often cut it too close to class start time and
questions whether higher frequency addresses this. Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that sweeper
buses address high number of students, but it’s better to address with regular service if
possible.
Ms. Andrus: Questions if route changes will result in major changes to schedule, such as
morning, evening, and weekend service. Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that current purpose is to
analyze preliminary proposed route changes; however, a major request from the public is for
later service both on weekdays and weekends, so this is being considered.
Mr. Castro: Shares results of project for Cal Poly Transportation class evaluating SLO Transit
cost savings analysis. Shares that new schedule that incorporates driver breaks would result in
cost savings that would allow for extension of service. Only concern is regarding public keeping
track of new schedule. Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that we will talk more about schedule
planning at next meeting.
Mr. Thompson: Questions how infrastructure is affected by changing routes i.e. costs
associated with signage, benches, etc. Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that route changes come
with costs associated with removing and installing stops. Transit expenses can be viewed in two
categories: what the Federal government pays for operations and what the Federal government
pays for capital. Federal government reimburses 80% for capital and 50% for operations.
Mr. Thompson: Brings up road closures for special events and questions if new routes consider
these events and road closures. Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that special events change every
year. Gardener acknowledges SLO Marathon route is being shifted toward Cal Poly’s campus in
the coming years to minimize the high number of road closures.
Ms. Wilson: Suggests including labels on Remix map showing activity centers and
neighborhoods. Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that adding labels of major trip generators was
requested by Remix software developer.
Mr. Thompson: Raises concern regarding homeless and children population that use Routes 4
and 5 near Foothill area. Mr. Anguiano acknowledges that there will still be consideration of
services in these areas.
Ms. Justice: Asked Ms. Andrus about shuttle on Cal Poly’s campus. Ms. Andrus acknowledges
there is currently no shuttle, nor funding available to have a shuttle available on camp us in the
near future; however, an escort van is available in the evenings.
Ms. Thyne moved to adjourn the meeting at 2:51 p.m. Ms. Justice seconded the motion. The
next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 13, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing
Room.
Submitted by: Megan Cutler, Transit Assistant