HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-2018 Hunter Item 3aJohn Logan Hunter, Jr.
1357 Phillips Lane
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
(626) 664-4412
JLoganh5@hotmail.com
5 January 2018
John Osumi
Chair, Mass Transportation Committee
Re: Agenda Item 4, “Update on Implementation of SRTP.”
Dear Chair Osumi & Members of the Mass Transportation Committee,
I am asking that you advise Mr. Anguiano and his staff of your preference that the bus stops
be removed from Phillips Lane.
Our neighborhood is a stakeholder in SLO Transit’s operation along Phillips and Pepper, yet
our concerns are continually kicked down the road. Since at least January 2016, you have
understood that bus service will be removed from Phillips/Pepper1. Two years later, it is
clear that Mr. Anguiano will not meet this goal in the near term. However, this is not the
only way that he can address our neighborhood’s concerns.
Mr. Anguiano has stated his metric for bus stop accessibility is access within ¼ mile. Refer
to the enclosed map2. Each of those circles shows a distance ¼ mile from those bus stops
on Mill St. and Phillips Lane. The only residences within ¼ mile of the Phillips bus stops,
but not the Mill St. bus stops (shown in red) are across Hwy 101. They cannot get to Phillips
Lane. These bus stops on Phillips Lane are redundant. Redundancy is inefficient.
Mr. Anguiano wanted to remove service from this neighborhood, first through the SRTP,
then by attempting to move bus service onto Mill St. Either option would have closed the
bus stops on Phillips Lane, and Mr. Anguiano maintains that either option would have been
his preference over the status quo. These bus stops are not necessary in his preferred route
alternatives.
If it is declared that those two stops on Phillips remain necessary, I ask by what metric this
determination is made. It is not accessibility – removing the two stops on Phillips would
not leave anyone outside the accessible distance to a bus stop. Because of this, ridership
numbers at these bus stops should be of little relevance. Remember, those riders choosing
1 May 2016 E-mail, enclosed.
2 Bus Stop Radius Map, enclosed.
Received by City Clerk's Office
January 8, 2018
Agenda Item: 3a
the Phillips stops are within an accessible distance to bus stops on Mill - surely they will
continue to use SLO Transit via the Mill St. stops.
It will likely be said that since the buses need to go on Pepper and Phillips to accommodate
the double decker bus for the time being, why not continue to have those two extra bus
stops? What is the difference? To the residents on this street, the difference is the noise of
air brakes with their corresponding beeps between the approximate hours of 6:45am –
11:00pm. The difference is the diesel exhaust that comes in my living room window as the
bus waits for passengers to load and unload. The difference is having to travel around a bus
precariously parked in the street while allowing passengers to load and unload3. During the
formation of the SRTP, I invited members of the MTC to sit with me on my front porch to
witness these impacts. Mr. Lopez accepted the invitation. Together, we saw these impacts.
I will note some items that would indicate public support for this request.
1. An e-mail from Mr. Anguiano to the MTC on 5/19/20161. In it, he acknowledges
that: “staff only received comments in favor of moving routes out of that area,
thus supporting such idea with public support.”
2. Mr. Anguiano, in his presentation to the Planning Commission on July 13 2016,
asserted that removing service from Phillips Lane was one of the top three items
of public comment during the formation of the SRTP.
Most of you will remember that Mr. Anguiano was insistent that the bus stops on Augusta
be moved to Laurel Lane during the creation of the SRTP. It was the result of the hard work
of some of the members of this committee that those stops remain on Augusta. Gamaliel
listened to you and took action accordingly. This is to say that you, the MTC, have shown
your commitment to oversight, independence, and advocating for what you think is right.
Please apply those values to our neighborhood and support the removal of the redundant
bus stops on Phillips Lane.
Finally, a word on the use of the Double Decker requiring SLO Transit to use these local
roads. Last meeting it was said that the Double Decker was usually used on this route, both
before and after its use on the Laguna Tripper4. This did not match my observations, so I
asked Damon Dash, First Transit’s General Manager, for confirmation. He referred me to his
Operations Manager, Kenny Gazin, who kindly compiled the actual Double Decker use on
Routes 3A & 3B from the start of the academic year to the date of last November’s meeting.
Accounting for its planned non-use on weekends and holidays, the Double Decker was used
on routes 3A and 3B for 52 out of 1,421 of total possible loops5. This is approximately 3.5%
of the time. I am in no way accusing intentional deceit, however this clarification is
pertinent, as the members of this Advisory Body extensively discussed actual Double
Decker usage during November’s meeting.
3 Picture showing a typical Tuesday, with the neighborhood’s trashcans prohibiting the bus
from pulling up to the stop and out of the street (enclosed)
1 May 2016 e-mail (enclosed)
4 Recorded Audio from November MTC Meeting, 1:57:00.
5 Excel Spreadsheet & E-Mail from Gazin (enclosed)
We have bus service on Phillips Lane and Pepper Street, two local roads that all involved
would prefer not be used. Service on these streets remains to accommodate a Double
Decker bus that utilizes the route 3.5% of the time. This accommodation has presented the
opportunity, which SLO Transit has taken, to place two redundant bus stops on Phillips
Lane. These bus stops do not extend accessibility to any current or potential SLO Transit
user, and they contribute to neighborhood impacts that have been acknowledged, but not
addressed, for more than two years. Sympathy towards the situation without action to
address it is meaningless.
I understand that bus travel will, for the time being, continue along Phillips Lane. Removing
the two unnecessary bus stops from Phillips Lane would address many of SLO Transit’s
impacts to our neighborhood. Furthermore, doing so would result in little, if any, impact on
the effectiveness of SLO Transit’s operations.
Sincerely,
Logan Hunter
RE: SRTP Input
Thank you. It was a lovely vacation but I also enjoy my work, so it’s good to be back.
Quick update: shortly after sending off this email to the MTC, Mr. Hunter replied and expressed appreciation for the
clarification. I find him to be a very reasonable, patient and understanding person. This is much appreciated. Perhaps a future
MTC member?
And now, I offer MTC an additional clarification:
In short, you are still not seeing the “final” recommendations
·The December and January meetings were to help MTC understand why changes are being recommended
and how they come about. In short, largely the recommendations are data and operational knowledge driven.
However, myself, the consultant and our industry recognizes that while the public expects an efficient system
largely driven by solid data, still more importantly is that public transit provide a service for those who needed it,
with reasonable accommodation and perhaps with some inefficiency in order to accommodate this.
·Therefore, and following those meetings, the public is given the opportunity to review and comment on those
proposed changes before anything was modified. We feel everyone should have a fair shot at seeing the
original concepts. It is not until this process, and only after this process that Staff works with the consultant to
refine route change suggestions. Again, refinements based on those public comments that we as operators
feel we can reasonably accommodate. That doesn’t mean all of them, but rather as many as we reasonably
can.
To speak specifically about the Pepper Tree loop:
1.Staff COMPLETELY agrees that some change should occur. I several times mentioned that we would closely be
looking at this during the SRTP process and sincerely request public comment on this matter. This is necessary
because to be fair; where there some who don’t want that much bus service there, there might be some people who
DO want heavy service there. No one can claim that the speak for everyone. Therefore, it would only be fair to allow
enough time for both groups to have an opportunity to comment on the situation BEFORE changes are made to the
original recommendations.
2.Well, now that the Public Comment section has closed, we now can adequately say that staff only received comments
in favor of moving routes out of that area, thus supporting such idea with public support. In the future when someone
comes in late and says “hey, you are taking away my bus service and you only heard one side of the story” we can
point to our outreach efforts the public comment period as the method in which we were hoping to hear from both
sides.
3.Its only after then that we go about refining what MTC, and eventually the public, saw in a way that takes into account
those documented comments. That is why the comments were shared at the last meeting.
To be honest, I was a little disappointed that no MTC member attended the Public Meeting we held in April. There was a lot of
information shared about this process that would help ease any tensions some might be feeling. But what can I say, we
Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org>
Thu 5/19/2016 2:33 PM
POP
To:Elizabeth Thyne <ethyne@sbcglobal.net>; Cheryl L. Andrus <candrus@calpoly.edu>; Christopher-Diego Lopez (dlopez30@calpoly.edu)
<dlopez30@calpoly.edu>; Denise Martinez (Missd500@yahoo.com) <Missd500@yahoo.com>; Heidi Harmon (sacredheart9395@yahoo.com)
<sacredheart9395@yahoo.com>; John Osumi <john@bishoppeaktech.com>; Louis Justice - MTC (gramlbj@gmail.com) <gramlbj@gmail.com>;
'Michelle L. Wong' (mwong84@calpoly.edu) (mwong84@calpoly.edu) <mwong84@calpoly.edu>; 'thompson@newmex.com'
<thompson@newmex.com>;
Cc:'Gordon Shaw' (gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com) <gordonshaw@lsctahoe.com>; Lawson, Dee <dlawson@slocity.org>; Cutler, Megan
<mcutler@slocity.org>; Bochum, Tim <tbochum@slocity.org>;
Mail - jloganh5@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search
1 of 4 10/7/17, 1:56 PM
provide the opportunity but can’t force anyone to attend.
We now face a new challenge. Comments from individual MTC members should have also come in through this same Public
Comment process but this process is now closed. This is disappointing because the MTC has had a copy of the
recommended changes and the various subsections that compile the SRTP for much longer than the public. The danger in
adding individual MTC member comments this late is that it might appear that the MTC individuals do not have to abide by the
same public schedule. Or, if and individual MTC’s comments conflicts with other public comments; that somehow the MTC
individuals supersede the rest of the public and that would be unfair.
I am going to work with my higher-ups and the consultant to see if there is way we can remedy this situation while maintaining
integrity to the process. Or perhaps I am just being over sensitive in what I perceive to be the “fair process” for moving ahead.
IDK. Related, we are also in the process of scheduling an additional special meeting. So please stay tuned. For now you can
send your personal comments on the SRTP plan to me as we compile a second set.
From: Elizabeth Thyne [mailto:ethyne@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:44 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject: RE: SRTP Input
Dear Gee – Welcome back! It looks like you’re jumping right in with both feet!
I’ve just read Mr. Hunter’s letter and was rather surprised at the mention of the Pepper Street loop still being in the SRTP plan. Actually, I
know it is still there, since I’ve just finished going through the document. It seems to me that in January, when you presented the proposed
changes to the MTC, it was decided that that particular loop would be removed from Routes 4, 5 and 6A & B. This was at the request of
people who reside on Pepper Street. I distinctly remember sitting next to Jim Thomson at that meeting, who, I’m sure, will remember the
discussion.
On each page of the SRTP involved with those routes, I’ve made a note of that fact, and I am quite puzzled as to why that loop has not
been removed from the final plan.
I didn’t copy the members of the MTC since I don’t have their email addresses at hand (and I’ve also just lost an hour through Microsoft
“updating” my system to Windows 10 – without my permission!). But if you wish to forward this to them, please feel free to do so.
Also, can you please advise me as to whom I should address my comments on the SRTP final document – You, Public Works, AECOM?
Thanks in advance for your help, and again welcome back. I hope you had a wonderful vacation – one well deserved.
Liz Thyne
From: Anguiano, Gamaliel [mailto:GAnguiano@slocity.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 9:10 AM
To: Cheryl L. Andrus; Christopher-Diego Lopez (dlopez30@calpoly.edu); Denise Martinez (Missd500@yahoo.com); 'Elizabeth Thyne'; Heidi
Harmon (sacredheart9395@yahoo.com); John Osumi; Louis Justice - MTC (gramlbj@gmail.com); 'Michelle L. Wong'
(mwong84@calpoly.edu) (mwong84@calpoly.edu); 'thompson@newmex.com'
Cc: John Logan Hunter (jloganh5@hotmail.com); Lawson, Dee; Cutler, Megan
Subject: FW: SRTP Input
MTC,
At the request of this individual I am forwarding on their letter to you. I had attempted to respond to Mr. John Logan Hunter
while was away but perhaps unsuccessfully. In my response I offer the following confirmation and clarification(s):
1.We will absolutely share his letter with the MTC per their request. We have no problem doing that.
2.He should also be aware that he is also seeing staffs response summarized. “No known incidents” is not intended to
Mail - jloganh5@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search
2 of 4 10/7/17, 1:56 PM
be dismissive of his concerns for that area but rather a comment of no known police reports of incidents documenting
actual violations, accidents, etc.; versus anecdotal observations.
As a practice, we use Police Reports or our internal Incident Reports as basis for “known incidents” simply for reason that
having to share a road with any other moving object on the road (e.g. bicyclist, pedestrian, trash truck, etc.) can be construed
as less than ideal. However that is the nature of using public roads and not necessarily an “incident.” Again, not intended to
be dismissive but a matter of semantics needing clarification.
Regardless, I also reassured Mr. Hunter that I would be refining the “Staff Response” box to reflect this elaboration before it
goes to City Council. It may be appropriate for our Chair to reach out to Mr. Hunter (Cc’d) to confirm receipt of his Letter,
extend an invitation to the next MTC and perhaps make it a matter worth discussing then. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
From: John Logan Hunter [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:36 AM
To: Anguiano, Gamaliel
Cc: Cutler, Megan
Subject: Re: SRTP Input
G -
Please ensure that the attached gets forwarded to the MTC. I have also emailed them via the portal on the City website,
however I am not sure how often the members access the City e-mail.
Thank you again, Megan, for the updates on the process as it moves forward. Please let me know when the MTC will meet
again. I look forward to being there.
Logan
On Apr 6, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Anguiano, Gamaliel <GAnguiano@slocity.org> wrote:
Hello John,
Thank you for your carefully and throughout letter. In it, you bring up some very interesting points that reflect
many of our own. Input like this will help us along the process as we encourage certain changes to the public
transit system. Just note that this process is a challenge and is rarely achieved with a 100% consensus because
as you can imagine; while one neighbor wants a bus stop further another wants it closer….So stay tuned. Thanks
again.
From:John Logan Hunter [mailto:jloganh5@hotmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday, April 06, 2016 10:50 AM
To:Anguiano, Gamaliel
Subject:SRTP Input
G -
Thank you for your presentation last night. I enjoyed meeting you and hearing about the future of our bus system.
Attached is a letter regarding my concerns about the bus service on Phillips Lane. I have placed a hard copy in the mail for your records.
Mail - jloganh5@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search
3 of 4 10/7/17, 1:56 PM
Please contact me with any discussion, questions, or concerns. As I said in the letter, I would be happy to meet with you anytime.
Thank you,
Logan Hunter
Mail - jloganh5@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search
4 of 4 10/7/17, 1:56 PM
1/4
M
ILE
1/4 MILE
1/4 MILEPEA
C
H STR
E
ET
JOHN
SON
A
V
E
TORO
S
TR
E
E
T
PALM STR
E
ET
S
AN
T
A
RO
S
A
S
TR
E
E
T
PHILLIPS LANE
JOHNSON AVEPEACH PHILLIPS
ALLEY
P
E
P
P
ER
S
TR
E
E
T
PEACH STREET
MILL STR
E
ET
MILL STR
E
ET
MILL STR
E
ET
BUS STOP: QUARTER MILE RADIUS STUDY
Scale: 1:4000
From:Gazin, Kenny Kenny.Gazin@firstgroup.com
Subject:RE: DOUBLE DECKER - PEPPER LOOP
Date:November 10, 2017 at 2:21 PM
To :John Logan jloganh5@hotmail.com
Cc:Dash, Damon Damon.Dash@firstgroup.com
John - per request - a/ached is our spreadsheet regarding all loops on Phillips /Pepper
u7lizing the Double Decker Bus.
We do not operate the Double Decker on weekends and most holidays.
Any ques7ons feel free to contact me any7me.
Best Regards,
Kenny GazinKenny Gazin
Kenny Gazin - Opera.ons Manager -San Luis ObispoKenny Gazin - Opera.ons Manager -San Luis Obispo
This email (and any attachment) is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have
received this email in error, please notify us immediately and delete it. Reading, disclosing, copying or disseminating any
portion of this transmission without authorization is prohibited. For more information on our range of services, please visit
http://www.firstgroupplc.com
Copy of DD
service…-17.xlsx
3A DD Service
Date Loops
14-Sep 3
11-Oct 4
12-Oct 3
13-Oct 4
16-Oct 3
17-Oct 1
18-Oct 5
19-Oct 6
20-Oct 1
23-Oct 1
24-Oct 4
25-Oct 1
25-Oct 1
26-Oct 5
27-Oct 5
9-Nov 5