The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-11-2016 MTC Agenda PacketService Complaints: Complaints regarding bus service or routes are to be directed to the Transit Coordinator 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) ANNOUNCEMENTS: Oath of Office – John Osumi 5 min. 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. MINUTES: March 9th, 2016 (Attachment 1) ACTION ITEMS: 1.Nomination of Chair and Vice Chair 10 min. 2.2016-17 MTC Meeting Schedule DISCUSSION ITEMS: 3. Committee Items - None 0 min. 4. Staff Items 20 min. a)Transit Manager’s Report b)Recommendation of Award for Operations & Maintenance Contract c)Update on SRTP Process; Review of Public Comments ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting will be held July 13th, 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. Amended Agenda Mass Transportation Committee Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Wednesday, May 11, 2016 – 2:30 pm 001 ACTION ITEMS: Agenda Item 1: Nomination of Chair and Vice Chair Nomination and selection of the Chair and Vice Chair for the Mass Transit Advisory Committee for the 2016-17 Fiscal Year as established by committee bylaws, which state: ”The officers will consist of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson who will be elected at the Committee meeting in April or May for one-year terms that commence the first meeting of the next fiscal year” (Action item) Agenda Item 2: 2016-17 MTC Meeting Schedule Selection of meeting dates for the 2016-17 FY as established by committee bylaws, which state: “The Committee will approve an annual regular meeting schedule by June of each year” (Action item) DISCUSSION ITEMS: Agenda Item 3: Committee Items - None Agenda Item 4a: Staff Items – Transit Manager’s Report General update on Transit related ridership trends, events, happening, projects and other points of interest. a)Ridership Report – Continual strong ridership trend b)LOSSAN Agreement – Council approved a one-year pilot project with the Los Angeles- San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Road Corridor Agency to accept valid Surfliner passes on SLO Transit to be reimbursed on a quarterly basis. Effective June 1st. c)Transit Center Project (Santa Rosa St.) – The last staff has heard, this project is no longer moving forward at least not for the time being. No other information provided to staff. d)Automatic Passenger Counter’s – Thanks to a CA State Prop 1B Grant, APC’s equipment was purchased. With the help of Bishop Peak Tech and under current agreement, software was developed and equipment was installed in 80% of the fleet. Bus app now reports how full buses are in real-time. Will also yield insights in passenger travel patterns and help with future service change decisions. Early data reporting looks promising. Also comes with ancillary benefit of free public wi-fi for passengers. e)Three Vehicle Replacement Purchased – Staff just received word from Gillig Corp that the production of the vehicles has been moved up from April 2017 to January 2017. f)Marketing and marathon – Update Agenda Item 4b: Staff Items – Recommendation for Award of O & M Contract Staff received approval from Council on December 15th, 2015 to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the continual acquisition of these services from a qualified and responsible vendor. Ensuing, staff made notice of the RFP on the City’s website, local periodicals, trade publications 002 and e-bid board. An overview and tour of the transit system was given at the preproposal conference held on January 27th, 2016 and whereby 20-25 individuals from various firms attended. February 5th marked the deadline for submitting questions for clarification and soon after, on February 19th, and addendum was posted addressing the questions and comments that came in. March 9th marked the deadline for proposals to be delivered. SLO Transit received a total of seven proposals from various firms, including: MV Transportation, National Express, Silverado, Storer Transit Systems, First Transit Inc., Roadrunner and Transdev. As specified in the RFP, proposals were scored based on “best-in- value” as defined by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), whereby the ability to meet technical merit was scored before consideration of costs by the Evaluation Committee. The inter-disciplinary Evaluation Committee consisted of two City staff persons, a representative from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), a representative from CalPoly staff and a member of the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) as an observer to the process. The Evaluation team scored all submitted proposals independently. The combine technical evaluation scores then defined the top three firms. Only these firm’s Cost Proposals were opened up to determine if they were within competitive range of each other. If one of these proposals had been significantly out of range (above) with the other two, it would have been disqualified as not being applicable for a “best-in-value” determination. A consideration was also given to the fourth place scored proposal to see if it was statistically indistinguishable (within a few points) from the third place scored proposal. However, there was a clear demarcation between the third place scored proposal and the fourth; and all three top scored proposals were within competitive range of each other. The top three scored proposing firm were invited to continue on in the evaluation process. Interviews with corporate organization representatives and the proposed management team (General Manager, Maintenance Manager and Operations/Safety Manger) were held on April 5th. Another round of evaluations and scoring was given based on the interview and qualifications of both the firm and proposed management team by a second evaluation team relevant to monitoring day-to-day operations. The results of the extensive RFP and Evaluation Committee(s) scoring process suggests that the contract for the operations & maintenance of the SLO Transit system should be again awarded to First Transit Inc. Not only did First Transit Inc. score the highest in both the technical and interview evaluations, but they also had the lowest proposed cost of three top scoring vendors, representing a true “best-in-value” ranking. Staff therefore entered into negotiation with First Transit in order to receive First Transit’s Best and Final Offer. The contract term would be for a base four-year contract and the possibility of three one-year extensions, as approved by Council. Recommendation is being made at the June 14 Meeting. Agenda Item 4c: Staff Items – SRTP Update; Review of Public Comments Review the public comments submitted in response to the draft SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), Fiscal Year 2017 – 2021. Public comments were accepted through Friday, May 6, 2016. See Attachment 3 003 The SRTP is a planning document to help shape the future of the SLO Transit public transit system for the next five to seven years. The SRTP provides direction in planning system growth and responding to needed changes, per the evaluation of existing and projected demographic, socioeconomic, land use, financial and operating conditions by an independent third-party consultant. The draft SRTP working papers are available for public review on SLO Transit’s website at slotransit.org, the City/County Library at 995 Palm Street, the City of San Luis Obispo Clerk’s Office at 990 Palm Street, and the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. Additional public meetings regarding the SRTP will include the City Planning Commission (PC) meeting on Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM. The PC meeting is to be held at the City Hall Council Chamber Room at 990 Palm Street. The SLO Transit Manager will present on the SRTP and proposed system changes at this meeting prior to bringing the recommendations to City Council for adoption at the July 12th meeting. The next meeting will be held: July 13th, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: 1.Minutes of the March 9th, 2016 MTC meeting 2.Transit Manager’s Ridership Report 3.SRTP Public Comments G:\Transportation-Data\_Unsorted Stuff\Transportation\Transportation Committees\MTC Committee\FY 2016 004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson James Thompson called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: James Thompson (Chair – Technical), Elizabeth Thyne (Vice Chair – Senior), Cheryl Andrus (Cal Poly), Denise Martinez (Disabled), John Osumi (Business), Louise Justice (Member at Large), Diego-Christopher Lopez (Alternate), Heidi Harmon (Alternate) Absent: Michelle Wong (Student) Staff: Gamaliel Anguiano (Transit Manager), Dee Lawson (Transit Coordinator), Megan Cutler (Transit Assistant) PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Jason Portugal, United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) of SLO County Technology Coordinator, presented on the Mobility Services for All Americans (MSAA) grant pilot program for the SLO County region. This program will include a low-tech/web/phone app with all private and public transportation systems in SLO County. Mr. Portugal shared input is currently being collected from stakeholders. User feedback will be provided at a later date. Mr. Portugal offered to attend a future MTC meeting to provide an updated report. MINUTES Approval of January 13, 2016 Meeting Minutes Mr. Thompson requested an approval of the January 13 th draft minutes. Draft Minutes MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm St., San Luis Obispo, Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 – 2:30 pm 005 ATTACHMENT 1 - 2 - Per the request of MTC members, the minutes were amended as follows: Page numbers were added Page 1 - Absent members added to the roll call Page 3 - “He would address” changed to “He addressed” Page 4 - “loss of service” inserted to clarify statement regarding Route 1 Mr. Thompson requested an approval of the minutes as corrected. Ms. Thyne moved to accept the amended January 13th draft minutes. Ms. Martinez seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS Agenda Item #1: MTC Retreat Day, Time, Location Mr. Anguiano acknowledged he has a different approach to managing the MTC than his predecessor. He communicated his desire to hear from the entire body regarding committee expectations. He shared his vision for the MTC advisory body to have a retreat separate from regular business. The date and time of this retreat is for the MTC to determine. Mr. Anguiano questioned if there are any City staff members the MTC desires to meet at this retreat. He also shared the group can expect open dialogue, team building, and food at this retreat. Mr. Thompson affirmed that having no specific agenda seemed like a good plan. Ms. Thyne shared she is not too in favor of this retreat because the committee members are typically open with one another. Mr. Anguiano acknowledged that attendance at this retreat is not mandatory. Ms. Andrus shared that team building is important for getting to know other committee members. Mr. Thompson requested a vote to approve the MTC retreat. Committee members in favor included: Ms. Andrus, Mr. Osumi, Ms. Martinez, Mr. Lopez, and Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson requested a motion to leave time and place of this retreat up to transit staff. Ms. Thyne moved this motion. Ms. Martinez seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 006 - 3 - DISCUSSION ITEMS Agenda Item #2: Committee Items a)Coordinated Downtown Transit Center Mr. Lee Johnson, City Economic Developer Manager, provided conceptual presentation of Coordinated Downtown Transit Center. Mr. Anguiano shared that SLO Transit has been included in meetings with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and the developer. SLO Transit will continue to have a role throughout the planning stages of this project. Mr. Anguiano elaborated on design of bus bays at this transit center, taking factors into consideration such as safety measures, crosswalks, ticket vendors, and a driver breakroom and restroom. Ms. Thyne mentioned City Council Meeting and questioned the cost of the project. Mr. Johnson acknowledged there are environmental mitigations and a process for obtaining a good deal for this project. He also acknowledged this is a complicated project for transit, parking, housing, and traffic. Ms. Eliane Wilson, SLOCOG Transportation Planner, questioned whether traffic engineering study had been completed. Mr. Johnson responded that computer program analyzes the fatal flaws in the design at this point. Mr. Anguiano acknowledged there is motivation to make this project work and the consideration of safety is important. Mr. Thompson questioned confidence in City’s project planning abilities. Ms. Thyne raised point that Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee (ARC) opposes project. Mr. Thompson acknowledged importance of transit involvement at the committee meetings Ms. Thyne mentioned. In response, Mr. Anguiano questioned how the Mass Transportation Committee can help. Mr. Johnson acknowledged that the ARC is a well-educated group. He raised the important point of considering whether the new transit center would be better than what we have today. 007 - 4 - b)Electric Bicycles Mr. Anguiano acknowledged the electric bike policies have not kept up with technology. The bike rack manufacturer does not accommodate the heavy weight of electric bikes. He mentioned challenges, such as various kinds of electric bikes, which leaves the discretion to the driver. He raised the concern regarding whether electric bikes meet the safety precautions of buses. Mr. Al Rusco, First Transit General Manager, voiced his opposition in leaving the discretion to the drivers. Ms. Justice requested to hear from Mr. Geoff Straw, SLO Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Manager, regarding the RTA electric bike policy. Mr. Straw acknowledged that RTA is not responsible for any damage to electric bikes. Mr. Thompson requested response for item and emphasized concern for safety on buses. He communicated that rules against electric bikes are good. Mr. Anguiano shared that current policy is a blanket policy, which will be regularly revisited, but not yet revamped. Mr. Thompson acknowledged that discussion warrants keeping policy. c)Tripper Bus(es) and Overcrowding Mr. Anguiano acknowledged, regarding new Kennedy Library Tripper (KLT) service, sweeper buses were already in use and the KLT title allowed staff to program routes in Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system, bus tracker, head sign, etc. The intention was to alter the habits of riders to utilize the KLT. Mrs. Lawson shared that sweeper buses would formerly only run for two weeks at the beginning of each quarter. Sweeper buses are not considered revenue miles, but KLT is considered revenue miles. Mr. Rusco shared that First Transit staff is not leaving passengers behind, affirming that the KLT has been beneficial. Ms. Thyne questioned if Route 2 and Route 3 can have a similar Tripper service during the mornings. Mr. Anguiano responded that staff will look into the overcrowding on Route 2 and Route 3. Ms. Justice shared that drivers are not enforcing the carts and luggage policy. Mr. Rusco acknowledged the discretion regarding the carts and luggage policy is left to the drivers. Mr. Thompson emphasized that the carts and luggage policy needs to be enforced. 008 - 5 - Ms. Justice questioned if KLT is a Cal Poly bus. Mrs. Lawson clarified that the KLT is not a Cal Poly bus because the Kennedy Library is a public library. Agenda Item #3: Staff Items a)Transit Manager’s Report Mr. Anguiano shared the following: Seven proposals were submitted for the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the SLO Transit operation and maintenance of fixed-route, public transit services. RFP reviewers would include: Tim Bochum (City Public Works Deputy Director), Marlene Cramer (Assistant Director of Cal Poly Business Services), Eliane Wilson (SLOCOG Transportation Planner), Jim Thompson (MTC Chair), and Gamaliel Anguiano (City Transit Manager). Proposition 1B funds would be used for the replacement of the Transit AVL system. Cal Poly spring break construction would take place from March 19 (Saturday) through March 26 (Saturday), which will result in route detours. The SRTP is waiting for the compiled working papers. The Public SRTP Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 5, in order to discuss alternatives and gather public input regarding drafted plan. Cal Poly subsidy is still reaching a mutually beneficial agreement. New LOSSAN (Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency) agreement with Pacific Surfliner will close last mile gap by providing passengers with one ride on transit after riding Amtrak. Ride-On is the lead of MSAA, not SLO Transit The Advisory Body Recognition dinner is scheduled for Tuesday, March 22. Cal Poly faculty scheduled a strike for Friday, April 15, but, per our responsibility to transit riders, we are running a normal schedule. 009 - 6 - Driver Appreciation Day is Friday, March 18. b)Update on Bomb Threat and Double Decker Incident Mr. Anguiano provided details regarding the bomb threat incident that took place on Wednesday, January 6: Passenger announced he had reason to believe there was a bomb on one of the buses. Cal Poly University Police Department and City Police Department were notified. Entire SLO Transit system was shut down. Every bus was systematically checked. Buildings nearby parked buses were evacuated. Mr. Anguiano provided details regarding the Double Decker (DD) incident that took place on Monday, January 25: The DD typically provides exclusive service to Route 4 and Route 5 but, due to high ridership, Double Decker was sent on sweeper run. DD was dead-heading with no passengers on board. Video surveillance and driver comments were reviewed. Contractor is responsible for repairs. To reassure public safety, Mr. Anguiano acknowledged that visual ques will now be included in DD vehicle i.e. bright orange steering wheel. Ms. Thyne moved to adjourn meeting at 4:27 p.m. to the next regular meeting of Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. Ms. Justice seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Megan Cutler 010 02 / 0 1 / 1 5 02 / 2 8 / 1 5 0 2 / 2 9 / 1 6 07 / 0 1 / 1 5 07 / 0 1 / 1 4 02 / 0 1 / 1 6 02 / 2 8 / 1 5 0 2 / 2 9 / 1 6 Cu r r e n t Pe r c e n t C h a n g e Fi s c a l Y e a r Pe r c e n t C h a n g e To T o T o T o Ta b l e A : R i d e r s h i p T r e nd s b y F a r e C o m p o n e n t Cu r r e n t P e r i o d Fi s c a l Y e a r Ge n e r a l F a r e 35 , 0 8 1 3 4 , 2 0 6 2 9 8 , 6 3 9 2 9 6 , 5 0 3 -2 . 4 9 % - 0 . 7 2 % Ca l P o l y T o t a l 71 , 7 5 2 9 1 , 6 7 6 4 1 3 , 2 5 9 4 9 6 , 7 8 3 27 . 7 7 % 2 0 . 2 1 % RE V E N U E 1 R i d e P a s s -3 6 . 8 4 % 70 . 7 5 % 76 48 29 4 50 2 1- D a y R e g P a s s -2 0 . 0 8 % -4 . 3 5 % 70 7 56 5 5, 5 1 3 5, 2 7 3 3- D a y R e g P a s s -2 5 . 4 0 % 3. 1 7 % 31 5 23 5 2, 3 6 4 2, 4 3 9 5- D a y R e g P a s s 41 . 5 6 % 4. 6 3 % 15 4 21 8 1, 4 4 7 1, 5 1 4 7- D a y R e g P a s s -6 . 2 5 % -3 8 . 9 8 % 48 45 90 3 55 1 31 D a y R e g P a s s 10 . 7 8 % -3 . 6 0 % 1, 4 6 6 1, 6 2 4 11 , 9 0 7 11 , 4 7 8 31 - D a y S t u d e n t P a -1 5 . 9 6 % -1 0 . 6 8 % 1, 9 5 5 1, 6 4 3 10 , 9 8 2 9, 8 0 9 Am t r a k 00 04 Ca l P o l y 24 . 4 8 % 18 . 4 8 % 71 , 3 0 1 88 , 7 5 7 40 9 , 9 6 8 48 5 , 7 4 6 CP I n v a l i d C a r d 54 7 . 2 3 % 23 5 . 3 7 % 45 1 2, 9 1 9 3, 2 9 1 11 , 0 3 7 DA P P a s s -2 . 6 5 % 4. 7 4 % 1, 0 2 0 99 3 7, 8 6 9 8, 2 4 2 Pa s s O v e r r i d e -3 7 . 1 8 % -2 1 . 0 6 % 71 0 44 6 3, 5 7 1 2, 8 1 9 Pu n c h R e g P a s s 98 . 6 5 % -3 3 . 8 3 % 74 14 7 1, 6 0 8 1, 0 6 4 Pu n c h S D P a s s -1 0 . 7 1 % 11 7 . 5 7 % 14 0 12 5 55 2 1, 2 0 1 Re g D a y P a s s -2 . 8 8 % -7 . 4 1 % 1, 5 2 6 1, 4 8 2 13 , 5 8 1 12 , 5 7 5 Re g i o n a l P a s s -8 . 2 1 % 0. 4 0 % 6, 1 4 1 5, 6 3 7 47 , 7 4 4 47 , 9 3 7 Re g u l a r C a s h -2 . 3 7 % -0 . 0 6 % 7, 8 1 8 7, 6 3 3 61 , 4 8 5 61 , 4 4 8 Ru n A b o u t 06 01 3 SR / D I S C a s h 4. 0 9 % -3 . 5 2 % 1, 9 8 2 2, 0 6 3 17 , 3 9 9 16 , 7 8 6 SR / D I S P a s s 4. 2 1 % -6 . 1 6 % 7, 3 4 2 7, 6 5 1 63 , 4 5 7 59 , 5 5 0 Pr a d o T o k e n -2 4 . 1 3 % 8. 9 1 % 75 0 56 9 5, 3 2 1 5, 7 9 5 NO N - R E V E N U E Co u r t e s y R i d e 0 13 0 88 Ch i l d U n d e r 5 0 64 8 0 3, 5 3 9 Fr e e R i d e E v e n t 33 . 3 4 % 0 4 8, 2 5 5 11 , 0 0 7 Fr e e R i d e r s -1 0 0 . 0 0 % -6 3 . 2 9 % 71 6 0 6, 8 7 2 2, 5 2 3 Fr e e T o k e n 10 0 . 0 0 % 46 . 3 0 % 51 0 5 47 9 Ne w c o m e r 35 0 . 0 0 % 21 . 0 9 % 6 27 12 8 15 5 Pr o m o P a s s -2 8 . 0 0 % -2 7 . 5 0 % 25 18 20 0 14 5 SE P -1 0 0 . 0 0 % -6 2 . 5 0 % 80 83 Tr a n s f e r s 12 . 9 7 % 11 . 0 5 % 1, 3 1 8 1, 4 8 9 10 , 4 7 7 11 , 6 3 5 VI P 11 . 1 8 % -4 . 1 2 % 77 8 86 5 6, 9 3 9 6, 6 5 3 Yo u t h 10 0 . 0 0 % 20 . 2 6 % 1 2 9, 7 0 9 11 , 6 7 6 TO T A L 17 . 8 3 % 11 . 4 3 % 10 6 , 8 3 3 12 5 , 8 8 2 71 1 , 8 9 8 79 3 , 2 8 6 011ATTACHMENT 2 02 / 0 1 / 1 5 02 / 2 8 / 1 5 0 2 / 2 9 / 1 6 07 / 0 1 / 1 5 07 / 0 1 / 1 4 02 / 0 1 / 1 6 02 / 2 8 / 1 5 0 2 / 2 9 / 1 6 Cu r r e n t Pe r c e n t C h a n g e Fi s c a l Y e a r Pe r c e n t C h a n g e To T o T o T o Ta b l e B : R e v e n u e H o u r s a n d R e v e n u e M i l e s Cu r r e n t P e r i o d Fi s c a l Y e a r 17 . 8 3 % 11 . 4 3 % Pa s s e n g e r s 10 6 , 8 3 3 . 0 0 12 5 , 8 8 2 . 0 0 71 1 , 8 9 8 . 0 0 79 3 , 2 8 6 . 0 0 18 . 0 7 % 11 . 6 7 % We e k d a y 97 , 0 4 1 . 0 0 11 4 , 5 7 9 . 0 0 63 2 , 3 0 3 . 0 0 70 6 , 0 8 2 . 0 0 16 . 5 1 % 10 . 6 7 % Sa t u r d a y 5, 6 8 8 . 0 0 6, 6 2 7 . 0 0 46 , 5 2 0 . 0 0 51 , 4 8 3 . 0 0 13 . 9 4 % 8. 0 0 % Su n d a y 4, 1 0 4 . 0 0 4, 6 7 6 . 0 0 33 , 0 7 5 . 0 0 35 , 7 2 1 . 0 0 10 . 7 8 % 1. 9 0 % Re v e n u e H o u r s 2, 6 2 6 . 1 8 2, 9 0 9 . 2 6 21 , 5 4 7 . 8 1 21 , 9 5 7 . 7 2 12 . 4 1 % 2. 0 6 % We e k d a y 2, 2 8 0 . 9 8 2, 5 6 4 . 0 6 18 , 4 5 7 . 0 4 18 , 8 3 7 . 0 3 0. 0 0 % -0 . 5 9 % Sa t u r d a y 19 1 . 7 2 19 1 . 7 2 1, 7 6 6 . 1 9 1, 7 5 5 . 7 4 0. 0 0 % 3. 0 5 % Su n d a y 15 3 . 4 8 15 3 . 4 8 1, 3 2 4 . 5 8 1, 3 6 4 . 9 5 6. 3 7 % 9. 3 5 % Pa s s e n g e r s p e r R e v e n u e H o u r s 40 . 6 8 43 . 2 7 33 . 0 4 36 . 1 3 9. 7 5 % 2. 3 9 % Re v e n u e M i l e s 31 , 5 5 7 . 0 0 34 , 6 3 5 . 0 0 25 7 , 9 8 7 . 0 0 26 4 , 1 4 1 . 0 0 11 . 3 6 % 2. 4 3 % We e k d a y 27 , 2 9 8 . 0 0 30 , 3 9 9 . 0 0 22 1 , 4 8 0 . 0 0 22 6 , 8 7 1 . 0 0 -1 . 0 3 % 1. 0 0 % Sa t u r d a y 2, 3 2 7 . 0 0 2, 3 0 3 . 0 0 19 , 9 1 1 . 0 0 20 , 1 1 0 . 0 0 0. 0 5 % 3. 4 0 % Su n d a y 1, 9 3 2 . 0 0 1, 9 3 3 . 0 0 16 , 5 9 6 . 0 0 17 , 1 6 0 . 0 0 7. 3 6 % 8. 8 4 % Pa s s e n g e r s p e r R e v e n u e M i l e s 3. 3 9 3. 6 3 2. 7 6 3. 0 0 012 03 / 0 1 / 1 5 03 / 3 1 / 1 5 0 3 / 3 1 / 1 6 07 / 0 1 / 1 5 07 / 0 1 / 1 4 03 / 0 1 / 1 6 03 / 3 1 / 1 5 0 3 / 3 1 / 1 6 Cu r r e n t Pe r c e n t C h a n g e Fi s c a l Y e a r Pe r c e n t C h a n g e To T o T o T o Ta b l e A : R i d e r s h i p T r e nd s b y F a r e C o m p o n e n t Cu r r e n t P e r i o d Fi s c a l Y e a r Ge n e r a l F a r e 40 , 0 4 7 3 5 , 4 8 2 3 3 8 , 6 8 6 3 3 1 , 9 8 5 -1 1 . 4 0 % - 1 . 9 8 % Ca l P o l y T o t a l 56 , 2 1 2 7 2 , 7 3 6 4 6 9 , 4 7 1 5 6 9 , 5 1 9 29 . 4 0 % 2 1 . 3 1 % RE V E N U E 1 R i d e P a s s - 2 0 . 7 5 % 5 6 . 7 7 % 53 42 34 7 54 4 1- D a y R e g P a s s -0 . 8 5 % -3 . 9 6 % 70 2 69 6 6, 2 1 5 5, 9 6 9 3- D a y R e g P a s s -3 7 . 1 9 % -1 . 1 7 % 28 5 17 9 2, 6 4 9 2, 6 1 8 5- D a y R e g P a s s 65 . 5 4 % 11 . 2 7 % 17 7 29 3 1, 6 2 4 1, 8 0 7 7- D a y R e g P a s s -4 0 . 9 1 % -3 9 . 0 3 % 22 13 92 5 56 4 31 D a y R e g P a s s -2 2 . 6 1 % -6 . 1 4 % 1, 8 3 1 1, 4 1 7 13 , 7 3 8 12 , 8 9 5 31 - D a y S t u d e n t P a -3 4 . 9 4 % -1 4 . 9 7 % 2, 3 5 8 1, 5 3 4 13 , 3 4 0 11 , 3 4 3 Am t r a k 01 05 Ca l P o l y 29 . 3 0 % 19 . 7 8 % 55 , 7 5 0 72 , 0 8 7 46 5 , 7 1 8 55 7 , 8 3 3 CP I n v a l i d C a r d 40 . 4 8 % 21 1 . 3 8 % 46 2 64 9 3, 7 5 3 11 , 6 8 6 DA P P a s s 3. 7 0 % 4. 6 2 % 1, 0 2 6 1, 0 6 4 8, 8 9 5 9, 3 0 6 Pa s s O v e r r i d e -6 5 . 8 7 % -2 9 . 9 1 % 87 9 30 0 4, 4 5 0 3, 1 1 9 Pu n c h R e g P a s s 21 . 4 3 % -2 9 . 8 2 % 12 6 15 3 1, 7 3 4 1, 2 1 7 Pu n c h S D P a s s 0. 0 0 % 10 6 . 9 2 % 55 55 60 7 1, 2 5 6 Re g D a y P a s s -1 5 . 6 3 % -8 . 4 5 % 1, 9 7 7 1, 6 6 8 15 , 5 5 8 14 , 2 4 3 Re g i o n a l P a s s -2 5 . 2 5 % -3 . 2 6 % 7, 9 5 3 5, 9 4 5 55 , 6 9 7 53 , 8 8 2 Re g u l a r C a s h -1 . 4 5 % -0 . 2 2 % 8, 2 2 4 8, 1 0 5 69 , 7 0 9 69 , 5 5 3 Ru n A b o u t 06 01 9 SR / D I S C a s h 0. 7 3 % -3 . 0 5 % 2, 2 0 3 2, 2 1 9 19 , 6 0 2 19 , 0 0 5 SR / D I S P a s s -3 . 5 5 % -5 . 8 5 % 8, 4 8 0 8, 1 7 9 71 , 9 3 7 67 , 7 2 9 Pr a d o T o k e n -4 . 2 3 % 7. 5 5 % 61 4 58 8 5, 9 3 5 6, 3 8 3 NO N - R E V E N U E Co u r t e s y R i d e 0 15 0 10 3 Ch i l d U n d e r 5 0 71 8 0 4, 2 5 7 Fr e e R i d e E v e n t -3 6 . 8 4 % 33 . 1 8 % 19 12 8, 2 7 4 11 , 0 1 9 Fr e e R i d e r s -1 0 0 . 0 0 % -6 7 . 8 6 % 97 9 0 7, 8 5 1 2, 5 2 3 Fr e e T o k e n -9 2 . 8 6 % 17 . 6 5 % 14 1 68 80 Ne w c o m e r -1 5 . 3 8 % 17 . 7 3 % 13 11 14 1 16 6 Pr o m o P a s s 0. 0 0 % -2 4 . 0 2 % 29 29 22 9 17 4 SE P -6 2 . 5 0 % 00 83 Tr a n s f e r s 12 . 2 7 % 11 . 1 8 % 1, 1 9 0 1, 3 3 6 11 , 6 6 7 12 , 9 7 1 VI P 8. 2 9 % -2 . 7 9 % 83 2 90 1 7, 7 7 1 7, 5 5 4 Yo u t h -6 6 . 6 7 % 20 . 2 1 % 6 2 9, 7 1 5 11 , 6 7 8 TO T A L 12 . 4 2 % 11 . 5 5 % 96 , 2 5 9 10 8 , 2 1 8 80 8 , 1 5 7 90 1 , 5 0 4 013 03 / 0 1 / 1 5 03 / 3 1 / 1 5 0 3 / 3 1 / 1 6 07 / 0 1 / 1 5 07 / 0 1 / 1 4 03 / 0 1 / 1 6 03 / 3 1 / 1 5 0 3 / 3 1 / 1 6 Cu r r e n t Pe r c e n t C h a n g e Fi s c a l Y e a r Pe r c e n t C h a n g e To T o T o T o Ta b l e B : R e v e n u e H o u r s a n d R e v e n u e M i l e s Cu r r e n t P e r i o d Fi s c a l Y e a r 12 . 4 2 % 11 . 5 5 % Pa s s e n g e r s 96 , 2 5 9 . 0 0 10 8 , 2 1 8 . 0 0 80 8 , 1 5 7 . 0 0 90 1 , 5 0 4 . 0 0 15 . 3 0 % 12 . 1 1 % We e k d a y 86 , 6 4 0 . 0 0 99 , 8 9 3 . 0 0 71 8 , 9 4 3 . 0 0 80 5 , 9 7 5 . 0 0 -2 . 4 1 % 9. 4 3 % Sa t u r d a y 4, 8 5 5 . 0 0 4, 7 3 8 . 0 0 51 , 3 7 5 . 0 0 56 , 2 2 1 . 0 0 -2 4 . 7 1 % 3. 8 8 % Su n d a y 4, 7 6 4 . 0 0 3, 5 8 7 . 0 0 37 , 8 3 9 . 0 0 39 , 3 0 8 . 0 0 7. 4 6 % 2. 5 8 % Re v e n u e H o u r s 2, 9 7 7 . 7 5 3, 1 9 9 . 7 6 24 , 5 2 5 . 5 6 25 , 1 5 7 . 4 8 10 . 0 4 % 3. 0 4 % We e k d a y 2, 5 9 4 . 1 8 2, 8 5 4 . 5 6 21 , 0 5 1 . 2 2 21 , 6 9 1 . 5 9 0. 0 0 % -0 . 5 3 % Sa t u r d a y 19 1 . 7 2 19 1 . 7 2 1, 9 5 7 . 9 1 1, 9 4 7 . 4 6 -2 0 . 0 0 % 0. 1 3 % Su n d a y 19 1 . 8 5 15 3 . 4 8 1, 5 1 6 . 4 3 1, 5 1 8 . 4 3 4. 6 2 % 8. 7 5 % Pa s s e n g e r s p e r R e v e n u e H o u r s 32 . 3 3 33 . 8 2 32 . 9 5 35 . 8 3 8. 4 9 % 3. 1 3 % Re v e n u e M i l e s 35 , 8 8 0 . 0 0 38 , 9 2 7 . 0 0 29 3 , 8 6 7 . 0 0 30 3 , 0 6 8 . 0 0 11 . 2 4 % 3. 5 2 % We e k d a y 31 , 1 3 1 . 0 0 34 , 6 2 9 . 0 0 25 2 , 6 1 1 . 0 0 26 1 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 0. 8 7 % 0. 9 9 % Sa t u r d a y 2, 2 9 9 . 0 0 2, 3 1 9 . 0 0 22 , 2 1 0 . 0 0 22 , 4 2 9 . 0 0 -1 9 . 2 2 % 0. 4 9 % Su n d a y 2, 4 5 0 . 0 0 1, 9 7 9 . 0 0 19 , 0 4 6 . 0 0 19 , 1 3 9 . 0 0 3. 6 2 % 8. 1 6 % Pa s s e n g e r s p e r R e v e n u e M i l e s 2. 6 8 2. 7 8 2. 7 5 2. 9 7 014 Public Comments Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) public comment period closed on May 6, 2016. The City of San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit) received a total of 12 public comments. Comments were submitted via Email, US mail, written comments, and verbal comments as follows: 7 – Email 3 – US Mail 1 – Handwritten 1 – Verbal 59% 25% 8% 8% SRTP Public Comments Email US Mail Handwritten Verbal 015 ATTACHMENT 3 Public Comments are summarized as follows: Service Routes Service Location Public Comment Staff’s Comments All - Consider smaller buses. Bigger buses are not always better. - Consider more buses - Run all routes in both clockwise and counter clockwise direction. - Run buses more often (no more than 15 minutes between bus stops within city limits and no more than 30 minutes between rural stops). - Ridership currently is exceeding the capacity of 40’ vehicles… - Considering the parking capacity constraints at the Bus Yard, this is a challenge. Larger (40’) but fewer is a more reasonable alternative - Bi-directional service is a goal of the plan - Higher frequency is a goal of the plan Route 1 Laurel & Orcutt roads - Retain existing hourly service to Laurel & Orcutt roads. - Plan is to reduce the hourly headway to 45 minutes perhaps even 30 Route 2 Higuera at Suburban bus stop - Retain existing service to Higuera/Suburban stop. - There is no plan to eliminate this stop Route 2 South Higuera/ Tank Farm/ Broad - Consider scheduling connection from RTA Route 10 to SLO Transit Route 2 in the morning and evening to better serve commuting professionals at businesses on South Higuera side of Tank Farm/Broad street vicinity. In the past the RTA Route 9 traveled down South Higuera and turned left on Tank Farm with a perfect schedule for working. - Worth considering during the development of schedules. Will likely work with RTA to see the feasibleness of this idea as the one of the goals is to improve connectivity between the two systems. Proposed South Higuera/ Los - Will returning to the Transit - Current plan suggests so. 016 Route 2 and 4 Osos Valley Road/ Madonna Center be necessary when traveling within South Higuera, LOVR, and Madonna vicinity? Spoke-N-Hub transit model assumes the need to transfer from a single location to other routes, as in SLO Route 3 Tank Farm at Wavertree & Tank Farm at Brookpine bus stops - Retain Tank Farm at Wavertree bus stop. Understands existing concerns with bus stop location, but elimination of this stop would place the nearest stop about a mile, rather from residence. - With proposed development in this area, would Tank Farm at Wavertree and Tank Farm at Brookpine be brought back? - Reverse route so stops are on residential side of Tank Farm. Tank Farm at Wavertree & Tank Farm at Brookpine bus stops have no lighting, no crosswalk, and no signage, which does not provide the city with safe access to these stops. - Ridership counts at Wavertree were nominal and largely unproductive although not entirely. New developments (e.g. Rhegetti Ranch) are showing potential for higher demand and could provide at least some service level albeit a little more distanced from current location - Yes, see response above - A phase 2 change to the Route 1 would provide bi-directional service near this segment. This is however dependent on the development of Rhegetti Ranch and comes with the changes to service associated with its development Route 3 Tank Farm between Broad and Orcutt - Reverse route so stops are on residential side of Tank Farm or remove these stops. - A phase 2 change to the Route 1 would provide bi-directional service near this segment. This is however dependent on the development of Rhegetti Ranch and comes with the changes to service associated with its development Routes 4, 5, 6B Phillips/ Pepper/ Johnson - Do bus stops on Phillips leave adequate room for buses to stop and pick up passengers - No known incidents of conflicts however it can be derived from current 017 while sufficiently staying out of the roadway? - Consider existing stop on South side of Phillips that requires bus to nose between a parking spot and a driveway, rather than pull to the curb parallel to the street. - Consider that both stops on Phillips are situated between two corners – one completely uncontrolled (Pepper) and one uncontrolled coming from Phillips and with limited visibility (Johnson). As buses go through each corner, there is often not enough room for passenger cars as the buses go around the corner. There is simply not enough room for the bus and for the inevitable driver that attempts to cut the corners between Phillips, Johnson, and Pepper, two- way residential streets with parking on both sides. - Consider existing stops on Mill St. These stops are on a wider street with a greater view of oncoming traffic and with more space for riders to wait for the bus. Residents of Phillips, Johnson, and Pepper are within the ¼ mile benchmark of these established stops. - Consider bus impact on Phillips/Johnson intersection due to bus traffic, which has required regular repairs by measurements of vehicles and roadway - This requires more analysis and is outside the scope of the SRTP - No known incidents of conflicts however it can be derived from current measurements of vehicles and roadway - Plan is recommending shifting some routes off of Pepper/Mill area to other roadways (e.g. Monterey). APC data will help with final determinations. - See response above 018 the City. Repair costs should be factored into the efficiency calculation of bus route. - Consider multitude of existing bus stops in close proximity. Removing bus stops on Phillips would not have impact on bus ridership and fees collected. Keeping buses on Mill St. will still serve Phillips/Johnson/Pepper neighborhood. - Omit Johnson/Phillips/Pepper detour. However, if existing detour is necessary, moving the bus stops to either Johnson or Pepper would provide a safer alternative. Johnson has cut-out area, where the road is widened and there is greater line of sight for passing cars. The East side of Pepper along the railroad tracks provides a long straight area where the bus could stop completely parallel to the street while providing enough room for the bus to achieve proper position coming into the turn onto Phillips. - Buses servicing Phillips/Pepper/Johnson are empty certain times of the day, wasting both time and money. Buses should go through 1300 block of Mill. - Buses traveling on 4 block detour usually drive well over - See response above - See response above - See response above - See response above 019 the dividing line for the traffic lanes. The Phillips/Pepper intersection is very narrow. Consider safety and visibility when buses turn from Pepper to Mill. The bus hangs out into the traffic lane on the railroad bridge because the red zone does not allow buses to pull forward enough to be in the clear. When cars try to go around these buses are often met with cars coming over the hill heading into town. Entire bridge curbing should be painted red. - Consider road damage from the weight of buses at the intersection of Peach/Johnson and the 700 block of Pepper. - Consider 800 block of Pepper that has no sidewalk – many riders park in this area and ride the bus. Lack of sidewalk poses danger and risk to these pedestrians/riders. Consider increasing all day parking in the 1200 and 1300 blocks of Peach, 700 block of Johnson, Phillips, and Pepper. - See response above - See response above None specified Madonna/ LOVR/ Laguna Lake area - Consider express or direct service from Madonna/LOVR to Johnson (2180 Johnson) in the mornings (between 7:30 and 8:30 AM) and afternoons (between 5:30 and 6:30 PM). - The merit of this request requires further evaluation. Improvements to the Route 2 (crossing LOVR bridge) might address this request. 020 None specified Southwood - Consider service to the YMCA on Southwood. - No safe turnaround to come out of Southwood. A full parking lot presents risks None specified Airport - Add bus stop to service airport - The merit of this request requires further evaluation 021