The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-14-2018 - MTC Agenda - Final 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: John Osumi (Chair – Business), Cheryl Andrus (Vice Chair - Cal Poly), Denise Martinez (Disabled), Elizabeth Thyne (Senior), Louise Justice (Member at Large), James Thompson (Technical), Torina Wilson (Student), Diego-Christopher Lopez (Alternate), David Figueroa (Alternate) ANNOUNCEMENTS: Special Thank-You to Elizabeth Thyne for her years of volunteer service on the City’s Mass Transportation Committee 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: January 10, 2018 (Attachment 1) PRESENTATION: 1. Funding the Future of SLO, Daryl Grigsby (or Designee) 20 min. Action Items: 2. Review of Public Comments for Phillips St. Bus Stop closure 10 min. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 2. Committee Items - None 0 min. 3. Staff Items 30 min. a) 10 Year Ridership Analysis b) Senior/Disabled 31-Day Pass Scheduled Fare Increase c) Transit Manager’s Report ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting will be held May 9th, 2018 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 Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Wednesday, March 14, 2018 – 2:30 pm Page 1 of 40 PRESENTATION: Agenda Item 1: Creating City of the Future, Daryl Grigsby (or Designee) The City is making progress on meeting the 2017-19 Major City goal of Fiscal Sustainability and Responsibility, which includes addressing capital improvement project goals. The City is embarking on a comprehensive review of the infrastructure projects and associated funding needs that will provide the services and experiences residents desire for the future of the City. Presentation by Public Works Director, Daryl Grigsby (or designee). ACTION ITEMS: Agenda Item 2: Committee Items - Review of Public Comments for Phillips St. Bus Stop closure For a 30-day period Staff has solicited public feedback on the impacts of potentially closing the Phillips St. stop. A review of the public feedback is attached (Attachment 2). DISCUSSION ITEMS: Agenda Item 3A: Staff Items – 10 Year Ridership Analysis Presentation summarizing the observations and trends of transit ridership and related key performance indicators for the last 10 years. Discussion of trends, threats and opportunities. Agenda Item 3B: Staff Items - Senior/Disabled 31-Day Pass City Council adopted (5-0) the updated SLO Transit fare structure on April 4, 2017. This updated fare structure includes annual incremental changes for the Senior/Disabled 31-Day Pass, $1.50 the first year and $2.00 after until reaching $20.00. Effective July 1, 2018, the Senior/Disabled 31-Day Pass will be $16.00. Agenda Item 3B: Staff Items – Transit Manager Report General verbal update on the events, happenings, promotions, ongoing projects, data and status of the transit program. The next meeting will be held: May 9th, 2018 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes - January 10, 2018 (Attachment 1) 2. Phillips at Pepper – Compilation of Public Feedback (Attachment 2) 3. MTC Ridership Report – January and February 2018 (Attachment 3) 4. Key Performance Indicator – SLO Transit Historical Trends (Attachment 4) G:\Transportation Division\_Transportation Committees\MTC Committee\FY 2018 Page 2 of 40 Wednesday, January 10, 2018 Meeting of the Mass Transportation Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Mass Transportation Committee was called to order on Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 2:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Osumi. ROLL CALL Present: John Osumi (Chair – Business), Committee Members Cheryl Andrus (Vice Chair - Cal Poly), Elizabeth Thyne (Senior), James Thompson (Technical), Louise Justice (Member at Large), Denise Martinez (Disabled), Torina Wilson (Student), David Figueroa (Alternate) Absent: Diego-Christopher Lopez (Alternate) Staff: Transit Manager Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Assistant Megan Weeks, Recording Secretary Lareina Gamboa PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. MINUTES Committee Member Thyne asked for expansion on reasons why the bus route cannot be moved to Mill Street. Reasons include: obstruction of power lines, telephone lines, and tree limbs. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER THYNE, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MARTINEZ, CARRIED 7-0, to approve the Minutes of the Mass Transportation Committee Meeting amendments for November 8, 2017. PRESENTATION Page 3 of 40 None. ACTION ITEMS None. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Committee Items a.) None 2. Staff Items a.) Analysis of Phillips St. Stop Staff did an analysis of all 143 bus stops within the City of San Luis Obispo between June 19, 2017 and December 31, 2017. The stops were ranked by their usage from most frequented, being the Downtown Transit Center, to the least used, such as Johnson at La Cita. Staff found that ridership during these less frequented months of the year averaged on/off usage of 7.5 passengers per stop. Staff then narrowed down the analysis to the Phillips/Pepper loop and found that the two Phillips at Pepper stops have a combined average of 7.2 on/off passenger usage. Staff and Committee Members explored many ideas, such as new locations, eliminating the double decker altogether and operating extra buses, and improving the street or sidewalk. The ideas brought up many more questions, such as the possibility of moving just one stop, how funding will be secured for extra drivers and buses, which division would be responsible for street and sidewalk improvements, as well as conflicts that may arise with existing city plans. Staff highly discouraged the closure of these stops without justifiable reasons, as the buses will continue to run through this loop regardless. Ultimately the Committee decided to accept public feedback regarding the Phillips at Pepper stops and then agendize this topic for one more meeting depending on the public feedback. Public Comment: Logan Hunter, City of San Luis Obispo resident, finds these stops on the Phillips/Pepper loop redundant. A couple months ago he invited Committee Members to observe the impact for a day. Committee Member Lopez accepted this invitation and experienced firsthand the palpable amount of exhaust that occurs daily. Mr. Hunter suggested that maintaining these stops are at the neighbors’ expense, and urged the committee to take a stand. b.) TAM Report Transit Asset Management (TAM) is required by the Federal Government to adapt a new reporting strategy to grasp a better understanding of the lifecycle of vehicles, facilities, and Page 4 of 40 equipment that is valued at $50,000 or more. A business model was created including qualifying assets of current standing according to FTA, and a plan on replacing them when necessary was developed. This topic will be on the agenda for City Council to review on January 16. c.) Update on SB1 Senate Bill No. 1 (SB1), a road repair and accountability act, is designed to provide additional funding and is available to the City of San Luis Obispo. This bill, if approved by City Council, can provide additional funding toward transportation projects that will help the City implement the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The City of SLO can receive up to $130,000 to supplement operating costs. The annual Transit budget is $7,000, but a single bus shelter can cost $12,000. This funding can be paired with other grants to help the City begin to achieve goals that Transit wishes to achieve. Committee Member Figueroa reminded the room that Measure J did not pass due to lack of knowledge of the pros that could have occurred and asked that everyone familiarize themselves with SB1 to better inform the public. d.) Transit Manager’s Report November 13, 2017 was the most recent round of changes since the June 19, 2017 systemwide changes. The final addition of extra service for Route 3A and 3B was a direct result of the Cal Poly trending hashtag #unsuckslotransit. Since the extra service was introduced there has been no feedback. The double decker was in repair due to the bridge incident, and is now back in the shop because of back axle issues from towing. Staff is hoping to have it back in circulation no later than the end of February, but hopefully by mid-January to alleviate the high ridership on the Laguna Tripper. The Token Transit app, where digital passes can be purchased, has seen growth in the number of passes sold, successfully generating additional pass sale revenue. The State of California Air Resources Board (CARB) has a goal for zero emission vehicles for California fleets and will roll out this goal in phases over the next several years. Zero emission buses can cost twice as much as regular diesel buses which leaves Transit staff seeking additional funding sources to achieve these goals. Committee Member Justice brought up that the current bus schedule causes confusion for new riders where it states “Summer Schedule” outside the timetable. She has also noticed an extra amount of eating occurring on the buses. In response, Staff will talk to contractors to remind drivers to enforce the no eating policy. Committee Member Justice also brought Page 5 of 40 up a general public concern for the schedule when it comes to those who are a one car household, as well as an issue of children seven years old being required to pay a full fare. Other cities charge by height and the City of San Luis Obispo chooses to charge by age. Children five years and under ride for free, and those who are age six years and older have the option of purchasing a discounted student pass. Committee Member Martinez asked if there was a policy that requires passengers to enter through the front door, and exit through the rear door as she was recently instructed. There is no policy that states such requirements. The issue with those passengers of shorter stature, and disabled passengers face exiting the rear door is there is nothing to hold onto while exiting, and the step down can be quite a fall if missed. ADJOURNMENT ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER THYNE, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER ANDRUS, CARRIED 7-0, to adjourn the meeting at 4:31 p.m. until the next Regular Meeting of the Mass Transportation Committee, March 14, 2018 at 2:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lareina Gamboa Recording Secretary Megan Weeks Transit Assistant APPROVED BY THE MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2018 Page 6 of 40 John 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 mile.Refer to the enclosed map2.Each of those circles shows a distance mile from those bus stops on Mill St.and Phillips Lane.The only residences within mile of the Phillips bus stops, butnot 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 Page 7 of 40 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 publicsupport 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 publicsupport.” 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) Page 8 of 40 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 Page 9 of 40 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 Page 10 of 40 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 Page 11 of 40 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 Page 12 of 40 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 Page 13 of 40 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 STREETMILL STR E ET MILL STR E ET MILL STR E ET BUS STOP: Page 14 of 40 Page 15 of 40 From:Gazin, Kenny Kenny.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.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, KennyGazinKennyGazin Kenny Gazin - Opera.ons Manager -San LuisObispoKennyGazin - 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 Page 16 of 40 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 Page 17 of 40 Christian, Kevin From:Kim Sent:Mon To:AdvisoryBodies; Anguiano, Gamaliel Subject:MTCCommunication” ToWhomitmayconcern, WehavebeadvisedthatthebusstoponPhillipslanewasscheduledtobestoppedsometimeago, butneverdid. Nowwehavebeen toldithasnot. Iowntheunits at1379and1371PhillipsLane. I believe thatthebusesshouldnotberunningdownourquietlittleneighborhood. Theyareruiningthe streetoutsideourunits, andthenoiseishorrible. Pleaseconsiderorpleatoremovethebusstop. Thanks, KimandRobertWurster Kim Realtorsince1989, GRI SanLuisObispoRealty 1 Page 18 of 40 Purrington, Teresa From:KellyRiddle <kellyriddle@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesd To:AdvisoryBodies Cc:Anguiano, Gamaliel Subject:MTCCommunication ToWhomItMay Concern, WewouldlikethebusstopsonPhillipsLanetoberemoved. Havingbusstopshereimpactsourneighborhood negatively. Wefindthestopstobeunsafe, andultimatelyunnecessary, consideringtheMillStreetstopsaresoclose. PleaseaddressthisissuebymovingbusserviceoffPhillipsandPepper, andremovingthePhillipsLanestops. Thankyou, KellyandJeff 1 Page 19 of 40 From:Mike Sent:Mon To:AdvisoryBodies Cc:Anguiano, Gamaliel Subject:MTCCommunication MassTransportationCommitteeandGamalielAnguiano Hellothere, asafellowneighboronPhillipsnearjohnsonave, wewantedtoreachoutwithregardstothethreebus stopswithin2-3blocksofeachother. TherearetwoonMill, andonejustnorthonPhillips. Livinganddrivingnearby these, weseethatthePhillipsstationistheleastusedofthestopsfromourperspective. Werealizetheroutehasan issuewiththedouble-deckerbusonthemillst. sectionwiththetrees, butwedon’tbelievethereisaneedforthree stopswithina3-4blockradius. Pleasebegintoaddresstheimpacts toourneighborhoodbyremovingthebusstopsonPhillipsLane. Mike 1 Page 20 of 40 Christian, Kevin From:DANA Sent:Mond To:AdvisoryBodies Cc:Anguiano, Gamaliel Subject:MTCCommunication Dear membersoftheMTC - Please considerremovingthebusstopsfromPhillipsLane. Theyareunnecessary, andtheycontributetoneighborhood impacts thatshould havebeensolvedlongago. ItisnotlostonthoseofuswhohavebeenpayingattentionthatSLOTransitwasabletomeettherequestsofa student survey forincreasedserviceshortlyafteritspublication intheMustangDaily. Meanwhile, thisexpandedimpactstoour neighborhood thatremainatleasttwoyearsafteranMTCmeetingwhereyouallunderstoodthatbusservicewouldberemoved from Phillips/Pepper. Iunderstandthatyouareevaluatingridership at thePhillipsbusstops. Withtwomorebusstopsservingthesameroutewithinsuchashort distanceonMillSt., Iwonder whyridership numbersatthePhillipsstops areatallrelevant. Those whocurrentlyusethe Phillipsstopswill continuetoSLOTransitviathetwostops1/10ofamileaway, onMillSt. InlightofthosestopsonMillSt, maintainingthebusstopson Phillips saysnothing fortheefficientoperation ofSLOTransit. Thefactthatsomepeoplechoose tousethesestops, whenanotherviablealternativealreadyexists, isnotareason thattheimpactstoour neighborhoodshould continuetoexistunmitigated. And, donotbelieveforonesecond thelineofthoughtthatsays: “Well, thebushastogodownthatstreet anyways, sowhat’sthe difference inincludingtwo extrastops?” Tothose thatlivein theneighborhood, thedifference isclear. Please listen toourneighborhood, and make adecision withusin mind. Sincerely, Dana PH: 949-275-7355 1 Page 21 of 40 From:cammis Sent:Monda To:AdvisoryBodies Cc:Anguiano, Gamaliel Subject:MTCCommunication DearMass Transit Committee, Ireside inthePhillipsandPepper neighborhoodandhavesofortwoyearsnow. Iamwritingtopleadwith youtobegin addressingtheimpact thatthecitybusroutehashadonourneighborhood byremovingthebusstopsonPhillipsLane. WeweretoldbythecitylastJunethatthebuswouldnolongertravelalongthePhillipsandPepperrouteandyetthe cityhasnotfollowed through. Thisisaquietneighborhood fullofchildrenandyoungfamilies andthespeed atwhich thesebusestravel around cornersandstreetsis notsafeforanyone, letalonesmallchildren. Pleasehonoryourwordandcommitment byremoving thecitybusserviceoffthePhillipsandPepper route. Thank you, Cammi 1 Page 22 of 40 1 Weeks, Megan From:SLO, Transit Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 8:25 AM To:'Wyll Subject:RE: Phillips at pepper Good Morning Wyll, Thank you for your feedback. City staff is compiling Phillips at Pepper public comment for further review. Have a great day, Megan .FHBO8FFLT Transit Assistant Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401‐3218 E mweeks@slocity.org T 805.783.7818 C 805.540.8988 slotransit.org From: Wyll Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 4:53 PM To: SLO, Transit <slotransit@slocity.org> Subject: Phillips at pepper Please don't get rid if the Phillips at pepper stop on the 3A and 3B bus. I use these stops to get to and from my classes at Cal Poly. This bus stop was one of the reasons I chose the house that I am currently living in. Please keep the bus stop there. Thanks Page 23 of 40 1 Weeks, Megan From:SLO, Transit Sent:Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:59 PM To:'Theo Subject:RE: Phillips and pepper stop Good Afternoon Theo, Thank you for your feedback. City staff is compiling Phillips at Pepper public comment for further review. Have a great day, Megan .FHBO8FFLT Transit Assistant Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401‐3218 E mweeks@slocity.org T 805.783.7818 C 805.540.8988 slotransit.org From: Theo Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:39 AM To: SLO, Transit <slotransit@slocity.org> Subject: Phillips and pepper stop There are a lot of us that use this stop every morning. I don’t not understand why it needs to be removed. With lots of engineers living over in this area we need all the time we can get in regards to transportation. Please do not remove this stop. Thanks, Theo Page 24 of 40 1 Weeks, Megan From:SLO, Transit Sent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:18 PM To:'Nora Subject:RE: Route 3A - Phillips at pepper wb & route3b - Phillips at pepper (eb) Thank you for your feedback, Nora! .FHBO8FFLT Transit Assistant Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401‐3218 E mweeks@slocity.org T 805.783.7818 C 805.540.8988 slotransit.org From: Nora Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 11:48 AM To: SLO, Transit <slotransit@slocity.org> Subject: Route 3A ‐ Phillips at pepper wb & route3b ‐ Phillips at pepper (eb) Please do not get rid of these stops! I use them daily. Sometimes I bike, but I often need lift in the rain, or when I have to bring heavy or fradge objects to and from cal poly. With love, Nora Page 25 of 40 1 Weeks, Megan From:SLO, Transit Sent:Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:16 PM To:'Jackie Subject:RE: Phillips at Pepper Thank you for your feedback, Jackie! .FHBO8FFLT Transit Assistant Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401‐3218 E mweeks@slocity.org T 805.783.7818 C 805.540.8988 slotransit.org From: Jackie Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:54 PM To: SLO, Transit <slotransit@slocity.org> Subject: Phillips at Pepper Hello City of SLO, I would love it if my usual bus stop at Phillips and Pepper would not be eliminated. I take this to and from school everyday and I use it to avoid the dark, scary walk home. Parking on campus is not an option for me. I feel comfortable with this stop since it’s super close to my houses and other stops are a little far and concerning when I have to walk home at night after class. Thank you for providing this service. I’m very grateful to use the bus to help the environment and minimize traffic. Thank you for considering my request, Jackie California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Page 26 of 40 1 Weeks, Megan From:SLO, Transit Sent:Friday, February 23, 2018 8:21 AM To:'Camelia Subject:RE: Phillips at Pepper stop Thank you for your feedback, Camelia! .FHBO8FFLT Transit Assistant Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401‐3218 E mweeks@slocity.org T 805.783.7818 C 805.540.8988 slotransit.org From: Camelia Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:11 PM To: SLO, Transit <slotransit@slocity.org> Subject: Phillips at Pepper stop To whom it may concern, The 3A and 3B transit stop at Phillips and Pepper should not be eliminated because many people depend on this stop. Coming home after dark, I am able to walk to my house safely because the bus stop is near my house. If the bus stop is closed, I would have to walk a much longer distance and my roommates and I are all young women who do not feel safe walking home many block late at night. I hope you consider not closing this stop Thanks Camelia Page 27 of 40 Page 28 of 40 Page 29 of 40 Page 30 of 40 Page 31 of 40 Page 32 of 40 Page 33 of 40 Page 34 of 40 Page 35 of 40 Page 36 of 40 Page 37 of 40 01/01/1702/28/17 02/28/1807/01/1707/01/1601/01/1802/28/17 02/28/18CurrentPercent ChangeFiscal YearPercent ChangeTo To To ToTable A: Ridership Trends by Fare ComponentCurrent PeriodFiscal YearGeneral Fare59,555 55,773 263,301 230,770-6.35% -12.36%CalPolyTotal167,016 133,833 455,782 351,509-19.87% -22.88%REVENUE1 Ride Pass313.64%213.86%22911013171-Day Reg Pass-19.92%-19.25%1,4761,1825,3974,3583-Day Reg Pass-47.10%-53.11%5522922,4571,1525-Day Reg Pass-29.63%-60.30%2431711,3935537-Day Reg Pass1011.76%278.75%171892731,03431 Day Reg Pass-20.21%-16.52%2,2511,79610,2578,56331-Day Student Pa42.05%40.23%3,1014,40511,03115,469Amtrak40.00%17.65%571720Cal Poly-20.03%-22.86%165,358132,245450,776347,722CP Invalid Card-4.22%-24.35%1,6581,5885,0063,787DAP Pass-36.03%-15.62%2,4011,5368,5047,176Pass Override-20.75%-17.94%5304201,5611,281Punch Reg Pass34.18%-26.50%1962631,034760Punch SD Pass-46.49%-29.10%18599646458Reg Day Pass-4.42%-8.76%2,8532,72711,84910,811Regional Pass-9.39%-2.62%11,78510,67843,73242,587Regular Cash-15.72%-21.45%12,28110,35053,94842,374Run About41.63%71.59%6038541,7142,941SR / DIS Cash-6.40%-15.00%3,3923,17515,06012,801SR / DIS Pass-11.95%-24.28%11,2189,87748,95937,073Token Transit01,97702,186Prado Token-4.86%-3.23%1,2551,1945,1955,027NON-REVENUEChild Under 5-6.66%-22.01%9468835,8124,533Courtesy Ride-18.18%-45.90%11912266Free Ride Event381.82%-24.52%221069,9867,537Free Token175.00%56.32%205587136Promo Pass17.86%53.54%5666198304Transfers-29.92%-23.66%2,4931,7479,9307,581VIP-1.11%2.03%1,6161,5986,9497,090Youth4.00%-7.15%25267,0896,582TOTAL-16.31%-19.02%226,571189,606719,083582,279Page 38 of 40 01/01/1702/28/17 02/28/1807/01/1707/01/1601/01/1802/28/17 02/28/18CurrentPercent ChangeFiscal YearPercent ChangeTo To To ToTable B: Revenue Hours and Revenue Miles Current PeriodFiscal Year-16.31%-19.02%Passengers226,571.00189,606.00719,083.00582,279.00-18.52%-21.09%Weekday207,082.00168,740.00649,258.00512,325.006.51%-2.07%Saturday11,119.0011,843.0040,831.0039,987.007.80%3.36%Sunday8,370.009,023.0028,994.0029,967.00303.27%-6.73%Revenue Hours5,588.8322,537.8622,537.8621,021.80301.19%-8.21%Weekday4,867.0019,525.9319,525.9317,922.66346.04%-5.32%Saturday376.501,679.351,679.351,590.08285.89%13.24%Sunday345.331,332.581,332.581,509.06-79.25%-13.18%Passengers per Revenue Hours40.548.4131.9127.70-8.51%-17.19%Revenue Miles70,943.0064,907.00283,543.00234,791.00-8.06%-18.88%Weekday61,377.0056,431.00244,512.00198,344.00-13.11%-12.52%Saturday4,880.004,240.0021,083.0018,444.00-9.60%0.31%Sunday4,686.004,236.0017,948.0018,003.00-8.53%-2.21%Passengers per Revenue Miles3.192.922.542.48Page 39 of 40 SLO Transit Fixed Route Key Performance Indicator Historical TrendsPerformance MeasuresFY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 AVGOperating Cost (Actual $)$2,747,800 $2,767,300 $2,796,400 $2,893,500 $3,093,500 $3,143,254 $3,192,303 $3,356,668 $3,733,298 $3,701,635 $3,198,035Annual Change0.7% 1.1% 3.5% 6.9% 1.6% 1.6% 5.1% 11.2%‐0.8%0.03Farebox Revenue (Actual $)$516,397 $593,769 $567,747 $592,300 $626,900 $625,299 $694,714 $690,317 $721,541 $710,291 $640,405Annual Change15.0%‐4.4% 4.3% 5.8%‐0.3% 11.1%‐0.6% 4.5%‐1.6%0.03Vehicle Service Hours33,760 34,049 34,781 33,607 33,005 32,729 32,983 33,016 33,958 34,698 34,044Annual Change0.9% 2.1%‐3.4%‐1.8%‐0.8% 0.8% 0.1% 2.9% 2.2%0.01Vehicle Service Miles381,608 378,766 396,410 397,495 393,931 396,013 399,892 396,369 412,377 437,145 421,819Annual Change‐0.7%4.7%0.3%‐0.9% 0.5% 1.0%‐0.9% 4.0% 6.0%0.06Ridership1,003,695 1,032,126 1,019,852 1,045,369 1,118,561 1,109,559 1,142,749 1,078,523 1,209,708 1,131,879 1,072,002Annual Change2.8%‐1.2% 2.5% 7.0%‐0.8% 3.0%‐5.6% 12.2%‐6.4%‐0.01Performance IndicatorsFY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 AVGOper. Cost per Hr. (Actual $)$81.39 $81.27 $80.40 $86.10 $93.73 $96.04 $96.79 $101.67 $109.94 $106.68 $93.40Annual Change‐0.1%‐1.1% 7.1% 8.9% 2.5% 0.8% 5.0% 8.1%‐3.0%0.03Oper. Cost per Psgr. (Actual $)$2.74$2.68 $2.74 $2.77 $2.77 $2.83 $2.79 $3.11 $3.09 $3.27 $2.88Annual Change‐2.1% 2.3% 0.9%‐0.1% 2.4%‐1.4% 11.4%‐0.8% 6.0%0.02Psgrs. per Hour29.73 30.31 29.3 31.1 33.9 33.9 34.6 32.7 35.6 32.6 32.38Annual Change2.0%‐3.3% 6.1% 9.0% 0.0% 2.2%‐5.7% 9.1%‐8.4%0.01Psgrs. per Mile2.63 2.72 2.57 2.63 2.84 2.80 2.86 2.72 2.93 2.59 2.73Annual Change3.6%‐5.6% 2.2% 8.0%‐1.3% 2.0%‐4.8% 7.8%‐11.7%0.00Farebox Recovery (Actual $)18.8%21.5% 20.3% 20.5% 20.3% 19.9% 21.8% 20.6% 19.3% 19.2% 0.20Annual Change14.2%‐5.4% 0.8%‐1.0%‐1.8% 9.4%‐5.5%‐6.0%‐0.7%0.00Transit 10-Year KPI IndicatorData Dashboard3/9/2018Page 40 of 40