HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 2 (Braun)Lomeli, Monique
Subject: Comments on Draft 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)
From: David Braun[ Meeting: +� '
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 8:52 AM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.vr > Item:
Cc: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncii2slocity.org>
Subject: Comments on Draft 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AUG 2 3 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Hemalata Dandekar, John Fowler, Daniel Knight, John Larsen, Ronald Malak, and Charles Stevenson
Cc: Jan Marx, Dan Carpenter, John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, and Dan Rivoire
Dear SLO Planning Commission,
Thank you for performing such an important and difficult public service. I appreciate your willingness to
consider my comments.
This email responds to the draft SRTP. I do support the overall principles of-
-Extend Hours of Service During School Year
-Provide Evening Service in Summer
-Fleet Improvements
-Bus Stop Improvements
-Discounted Day Pass
-Eliminate 5 -Day and 7 -Day Pass
-Ongoing Coordination
I do have concerns about some weak elements in the draft SRTP. While paying lip service to city and regional
goals to reduce car use and increase active transportation, this plan contains at best an attempt to maintain the
status quo, if not a strong poorly disguised desire to reduce bus use by local residents and visitors.
In summary, let me suggest five ways the transit plan could increase ridership and reduce car use:
1. Most routes should have 10-15 minute service during weekdays, 7am-6pm, and at most 30 minute
service 5-7 am and 6pm-midnight plus weekends.
Reason: Most people won't get out of their cars unless they can go and return with less than 10 minute waits at
bus stops. 30 and 60 minute service keeps many passengers in their cars. Poor early morning and evening
service further reduces ridership.
2. Rules should encourage passengers to bring their luggage on the bus.
Reasons: The current anti -luggage rules not only discriminate inexcusably against homeless and disabled
passengers who have no alternatives, but they discourage other riders who could easily use a bus instead of a car
for shopping or train travel. Some buses currently have seating configured with a luggage space in front of the
rear exit door, but drivers harass passengers into carrying suitcases or carts on their laps instead of letting them
use the unused and empty space. All buses serving the train station and shopping centers should have luggage
areas. Those areas can also serve standing passengers during peak times, if they don't contain luggage racks.
3. Work first with the Junior High School, then later with the elementary schools to deploy more buses to
bring kids to and from school.
Reasons: The new tripper route to the high school represents a good start, but it's far too limited geographically,
only bringing kids from downtown. Additional routes could augment the SLCUSD yellow buses and reduce lots
of car trips. Based on the traffic jams around most schools before first bell and after dismissal, the school bus
routes do not serve the demand now served by cars. The full #4 and 5 buses that serve the Junior High School
students hint that students near those routes take advantage of them. Students who don't live near those two
routes could benefit, if new routes could bring them to the Junior High School.
4. Don't buy any more double deck buses.
Reasons: They cost almost twice as much as single deck buses, and having more single deck buses would
permit improved service times. Running two single deck buses instead of one double deck bus could half the
service time. Riding in the double deck bus is fun, but unnecessary for most trips. The SRTP mentions delays
and maintenance disadvantages of the double deck buses.
5. Have all planning commission members rely on bus or active transportation for the next month. No car
trips.
Reason: This experience might lead to valuable insights.
I have ridden various bus routes in town over the last 20 years, primarily on what we now call routes 4 & 5. I
used to live near LOVR at Madonna; now, I live near Foothill at Cuesta. For health reasons, I prefer to bicycle
or walk when feasible, and I try to do most of my commuting that way. I have lived in and visited cities with
public transit operating on 5-12 minute service. It works far better and has permitted me to live car free in the
past. I don't feel able to do so with current transit options in SLO. I would like to stop using a car in town.
Since it is too onerous to bike with luggage to the Amtrak station or with groceries during weekly shopping
trips to Target or Costco, I use the bus, when possible. Current #4 & #5 route schedules make the shopping
quite inconvenient. When I catch the #5 on Saturday or Sunday morning at Foothill and Cuesta (at 8:43-8:45 or
9:43-9:45), and if it arrives on time at LOVR and Froom Ranch Way, Irish Hills Plaza, (around 9:00 or 10:00),
then I have about 18 minutes to complete my shopping at Target or Costco before catching the next #4 back at
9:28 or 10:28 (include the 5 minute walk each way from the stop to the store). The proposed routes would make
this even less convenient, requiring a transfer near Madonna and LOVR or lugging groceries for another 7-8
minutes walk.
Sincerely,
David Braun