HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-1997 Joint SLOCOG SLORTA CITY CouncilSan Luis Obispo Council of governments
Arroyo Grande
Regional Transportation Planning Agency Ataseadero
Metropolitan Planning Organization Grover Beach
Morro Bay
Conestion Management Agency Baso Robles
g g g Y Plslno Beael,
State Census Data Affiliate sant' 00111"s�11
Ronald L. DeCarli - Caecutive Director call LUIS Gblsp i1if11Sj
President: Hal Carden
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1997
***NOTE CHANGE OF DATE***
San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisor's Chamber
8:30 a.m.
* * *NOTE EARLIER START TIME***
SLORTA IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING
Vice President: Ruth Brackett
Individuals wishing accessibility accommodations at this meeting under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), may request
such accommodations to aid hearing, visual, or mobility impairment by contacting SLOCOG offices at 7814219. Please note; 48
hours advance notice will be necemry to honor your request.
CALL TO ORDER AND WELCOMING COMMENTS
ROLL CALL: SLO City Members, SLOCOG/SLORTA Members
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Any member of the public may address the Council for a period not to exceed
three minutes on any item of interest not on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the Council. The
Council will listen to all communication, but in compliance with the Brown Act, will not take any action
on items that are not on the agenda.
INTRODUCTION: Congressman Walter Capps District Representative.
A-1 JOINT SLOCOG/SLORTA/CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WORKSHOP: Multimodal
Facility
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
CALTRANS DISTRICT 5 DIRECTOR'S REPORT
B. TRANSPORTATION ITEMS
B-1 San Luis Obispo City Bicycle Count and Survey Findings (ACCEPT REPORT). Eades.
B-2 Status and Funding Evaluation on Specific Programmed Projects (APPROVE). Herron.
B-3 State Highway Account (SHA) Funding Arroyo Grande - Funding Proposed El Campo and
Brisco Road Interchanges Studies (APPROVE REALLOCATIONS AS
RECOMMENDED). Herron.
B-4 Transit Performance Audits - Progress on Prior Recommendation (FIND SATISFACTORY
PERFORMANCE EXCEPT FOR SOUTH BAY DIAL -A -RIDE). Herron.
r
B-5 Federal Project Submittal to Congressman Capps (APPROVE PROJECT SUBMITTAL).
DeCarli/Eades.
1 150 Osos Street, Ste. 202, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 *Te 1. (805) 781-4219* Fax. (805) 781-5703
E-mail. slocog@,slonet.org ♦ Internet. http://www.sionet.org/—ipslocog
C. AREA -WIDE ISSUES
C-1 Modification of Legislative Program to Include Housing (APPROVE MODIFICATIONS).
Harmon.
C-2 Pending State Legislation (APPROVE POSITIONS ON SPECIFIC BILLS). Harmon.
D. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
D-1 FY 1997/98 Overall Work Program and Budget (ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING
BUDGET AND WORK PROGRAM, AUTHORIZE TRANSMITTAL TO FUNDING
AGENCIES). DeCarli.
D-2 Fiscal Year 1997/98 Allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds,
consisting of State Transit Assistance (STA) and Local Transportation Funds (LTF)
(APPROVE). Herron.
D-3 SLOCOG Meeting Day (PROVIDE DIRECTION). DeCarli.
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group.
The recommendations for each item are noted in parenthesis. After public comment, any Council
Members or the Executive Director may request an item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to allow
discussion (Roll Call Vote).
E-1 SLOCOG Minutes - March 5, 1997 (APPROVE); TTAC Minutes - March 26
(INFORMATION).
E-2 Year -To -Date Financial Report (RECEIVE AND FILE). Winslow.
E-3 Notification of Grant and Funding Opportunity Deadlines (INFORMATION). Murphy.
E-4 Proposition 116 Funding: Reprogram Avila Bikeway and O'Connor Way Savings and
Funding Exchange between the City of Pismo Beach and the City of San Luis Obispo
(ADOPT RESOLUTIONS). Rodgers.
E-5 State Highway Account Policies - Development Update. (INFORMATION). Herron.
E-6 Call Box Program Update (INFORMATION). Rodgers.
E-7 Intercity Rail Update (INFORMATION). Rodgers.
E-8 Paso Robles Multimodal Shortfall (REPROGRAM FUNDS AND ADVANCE 97/98
URBAN SHA APPORTIONMENT). Eades.
E-9 Correspondence (INFORMATION). DeCarli.
E-10 Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (RATIFY POSITION). Rodgers.
F. DELEGATE COMMENTS
Next meeting: May 7, 1997
suelagendas\APR97.AGE
AGENDA
Special Joint Meefingi
San Luis Obispo City Council, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments,
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
Wednesday, April 9, 1997
8:30 am
Call to Order - Welcoming Comments by SLOCOGISLORTA President Hal Cardin
Roll Call
1. Purpose and Background.
■ Project Update.
• Description of Project components.
• Identification of Issues.
• Initial Studies and Findings.
Requested Action: Conceptual support, direct staff to continue to address issues, and continue
progress.
2. Overview: Proposed Intermodal Plan and Project Components.
• Multi -modal Center (Train Station, regional bus center)
• Transit Superstop (downtown).
• Local and Regional Bus System Route Operations
Requested Action: Conceptual support.
3. Multi -modal Center (train station/transit center).
Conceptual Site Plan Alternatives.
■ Parking Spaces (number, needs)
• Connectivity: Train Station/Transit Center.
• Location: Freight House & site design implications.
• Aesthetics .
• Ownership and Control.
• Lead Agency.
• Operations and Maintenance.
Recommendation: endorse concepts/direct staff to address identified issues.
4. Transit Super Stop.
■ Conceptual Site Design and Locations.
• Concerns raised:
• Noise and air quality Impacts to adjacent buildings.
• Ease and Safety of passenger transfers.
• Handicapped accessibility.
• Consistency with "downtown concept plan".
Requested Action: endorse concept and prime locations, and direct staff to jointly develop site
plan, assess impacts and develop appropriate mitigations.
5. Public/Private Partnership Consultant Study.
• Description & Status.
Requested Action: Information only
consider draft plan recommendations (available: 7/97).
A-1-1
rte=
i LM
l5
F
- _ — � - -
- v■ T� i
-0i rt7 LEt- F ■ice - -
Fir lliM6 %Jr- F�1
- F - F t ■ - — F ■ f ■
i
i_ ���■-�
F _ -
- 19mo9mr9ir- a: % Fmrm!n m9r�m-
—}T91!1- Ar irm- ■
La
— ■ F
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 9, '1997
SUBJECT: City of SL -O I SLOCOG I SLORTA Joint Meeting Regarding -the
Proposed San Luis Obispo Multi -Modal Transit Transfer Center
SUMMARY
The purpose of the Joint Meeting of the SLOCOG/SLORTA Board and the San Luis Obispo City
Council is to review the status and nature of the proposals for the Multi -Modal Transit Transfer
Center project and develop a common understanding and direction prior to proceeding with
detailed design. The agenda sheet for this item specifies areas where staff is seeking board
action and/or guidance.
The San Luis Obispo Multi -Modal Center project has four main components:
1. A "Multi -Modal Transfer Facility' located adjacent to the train depot and fronting on
Santa Barbara St.;
2. Provision of long-term parking for Amtrak passengers;
3. A "Super Stop" located adjacent to the old County Courthouse where the SLORTA and
SLO Transit buses currently are located; and
4. The San Luis Obispo component of the "public / private partnership" effort to
encourage the development of compatible business enterprises.
The attached series of site plans (Attachments 'A' through 'D') show various alternatives for the
Multi Modal Center. Attachment 'E' shows the site plan proposed for the Super Stop location by
the Stakeholders Committee that was formed to review and comment on the proposed project
The presentations will address each of these four major components. The SLOCOG/SLORTA
Board and the San Luis Obispo City Council are being asked to take a series of actions related to
the various project components either affirming the current proposals or providing further direction
as deemed necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff: Receive presentations and provide direction as appropriate to staff
TTAC: Support the project in concept. Bring back for further review as appropriate
DISCUSSION
The funding mix for the combined elements of the project include:
Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) $ 582,000
Proposition 116 funds $1,016,000
Surface Transportation Program (STP) $ 500,000
Federal Transit Assistance Sec. 9 $ 600,000
$2,698,000
A-1-2
PUblic Private Partnership Stud (addresses SLO, Paso Robles and Grover Beach rail stations)
Federal Transit Assistance Section 18i $ 26,400
Transportation Development Act (TDA) $ 3,600
$ 30,000
SLOCOG and SLO City staff have also included elements of the City's bicycle path network
connecting the site from the new pedestrian bridge at Jennifer St. (currently about to begin
construction) to the approved and funded bike path segment along the railroad right-of-way from
Orcutt Rd. to Bushnell St.(just south of the site). This has allowed the inclusion of FTA Section 9
funds for development of the multi -modal site and the shift of Prop 116 funds to complete the bike
path project connection.
Multi -modal Transfer Facili
The primary sources of funding for the purchase of the site are Transit Capital Improvement (TCI)
funds obtained from the State for the purpose of providing parking to accommodate the increasing
need related to the expanding rail services. The site was identified as a viable candidate location
to accommodate the SLORTA system "layover" needs and potentially accommodate a timed
transfer for the SLORTA system in conjunction with the SLO Transit focus in the downtown core.
The city commissioned a Route Impact Analysis to evaluate the shift of their system's "pulse" to
this location to allow for fewer buses dwelling at the current location adjacent to City Hall.
Preliminary drafts of this report indicate that some problems may result from a complete shift of
the city system to this site and recommends the establishment of a "transit spine" along the Osos
St. corridor. The attached Figure 11 from the Route Impact Study summarizes advantages and
disadvantages of the Amtrak Pulse Alternative and the Downtown Pulse Alternative.
Conceptual Site Plans
The attached site plans (Attachments "A" thru "D") developed by Wilbur Smith Associates show a
series of alternatives for development of the site to accommodate:
- long term parking for the San Diegan and Amtrak service;
- SLORTA buses for both transfer and layover uses;
- use by the City's SLO Transit system for connections to SLORTA.
- several options involve relocation of the existing Freight House and purchase of all or a portion
of an adjacent property.
Four design alternatives have been developed. Alternative 2 is being used for purposes of the
environmental review process as it incorporates the most complex mix of potential impacts. The
completion of an Initial Study is anticipated prior to the end of April. The determination on the
level of environmental review will be established at that time.
Route Impact Analysis
In addition Nelson \ Nygaard have conducted a Route Impact Analysis of the modification to both
SLORTA and SLO Transit routes that indicate that SLORTA system will not be heavily impacted
(about a $4,500 cost/yr). Some impacts will result to SLO Transit routes. City staff are continuing
their evaluation of these issues.
Issues:
Site design:
• Number of parking spaces
The state's Division of Rail has indicated the need for about 153 parking spaces.
However, we do not anticipate providing more than the approximately 110 spaces
A-1-3
shown under alternative #2. The existing parking lot (maintenance assessment) has
allocated only 6 spaces for Amtrak (although no restrictions are applied to the use of the
parking lot spaces, and the recent growth in passengers has resulted in a significant
number of the spaces being occupied during holiday weekends). The number of parking
spaces in the three alternatives range from a low of 37 in alternative #3 to a high of 110
under alternative #2. SLOCOG staff strongly endorse an alternative that maximizes
parking to be able to accommodate long-term needs and to provide the opportunity for
park-and-ride capacity.
Connectivity to existing parking and convenience of access from the train depot
Long-term parking should maintain direct access to and from the train depot without the
need to use Santa Barbara St., and the rail -to -bus connection within the site should be
convenient.
Location and disposition of the "Freight House"
Because the current location of the Freight House is in the center of the site, several of
the options under consideration propose that this structure be relocated to allow for
better overall use of the property. It is anticipated that portions of the structure could be
used for activity related to transit use of the site and portions used for
historic/recreational railroad related activity.
Site Ownership:
SLOCOG direction adopted in December and reaffirmed in February has been "to pursue
joint development and ownership of the project with the City of SLO". The exact form and
nature of the joint ownership issue has not been determined. City staff have expressed
their desire to be the sole owner of the property with agreements for the use of the site by
SLORTA. SLOCOG and SLORTA staff believe that maintaining an ownership interest in
the site is necessary to protect and maintain the regional system's long term interests and
to provide the maximum degree of flexibility for the regional transit system's expanding
needs.
Operational and maintenance responsibilities:
Resolution of these issues are dependent upon the determination regarding ownership.
Super Stop
Maintaining a strong transit presence in the downtown core area is a goal of both the City and
SLORTA. A facility is needed to serve both the regional and local transit users. The concept for
this location is that of a major bus stop for both systems (hence the name "Super Stop") where
buses will provide frequent service but will not layover between runs. This will allow high levels of
service but avoid some of the problems associated with buses idling or parking for long periods at
this location.
The attached site plan (Attachment "E") shows a series of pavement and sidewalk treatments at
essentially the current transit center location intended to provide enhanced amenities and create a
"sense of place" for the transit system. The "Stakeholders" group that was formed following
discussion before the SLO City Council last June have been reviewing a series of options
developed in conjunction with the Stakeholders by Pierre Rademaker and Chuck Crotser of Insite
Associates. Several arrangements have been considered focused on each leg of the Palm and
Osos intersection. The arrangement receiving the most favorable response is shown as
A-1-4
Attachment "E". Additional detail showing amenities for benches, shelters, lighting, information
kiosks etc. will be developed upon determination of final site location.
At the February meeting of the group the County of SLO staff member raised concerns that the
proposed site adjacent to the Old County Courthouse would present negative impacts regarding
noise and fumes that would be unacceptable to the County and their employees and would
request that these issues be addressed in an environmental impact analysis.
Several calls have recently been received from individuals concerned with the ability of
handicapped users to access buses on the sloping portions of Osos St. Arguments have also
been offered regarding moving the location to more centrally located sites on Higuera St. or
Monterey St. in front of the main entry to the Courthouse. The City's Downtown Concept Plan
anticipates the use of the Monterey Street frontage as a public plaza that would not be compatible
with its use as a transit center. Palm Street in front of the Courthouse is too near the air intake
location for the County buildings and in front of City Hall there are too many driveways to
adequately accommodate the buses.
Issues:
Site Design considerations
Impacts to County Courthouse and adjacent non air conditioned buildings
County staff have proposed moving the location away from County Courthouse or
provide air conditioning or other mitigation for the building.
Ease and safety of passenger transfers between buses
The current location can require crossing of both Palm St. and Osos St. to access other
buses. The proposed site would focus crossings at treated pavement crosswalks on
Osos St.
Handicapped accessibility
Wider sidewalk areas are needed along the south side of Osos St. and concerns have
been expressed regarding the need for more level approaches to the buses.
Consistency with the "Downtown Concept Plan"
Maintain design parameters consistent with future city development.
Public 1 Private Partnership
An analysis of the opportunity for public / private partnership opportunities at multimodal stations
in the county is being conducted by Carl Schiermeyer and Walter Rice. This analysis will address
the Paso Robles and Grover Beach stations as well as the subject San Luis Obispo location. The
study is intended to provide a framework for the development of public / private partnerships to
help cover operational costs associated with the centers, and to maximize the interconnectivity of
all modes of transit, public and private. Initial work has been completed on the study, with a fact
finding tour of similar facilities completed. Meetings have been scheduled March 27th and 280,
between the consultants and the three cities involved. Completion of the study is anticipated by
June 30th.
Mmodaljointmeeting
A-1-5
1
1
� �•r. � *.pp `: - u ' �. hhii •, •' k �li. a .fir � ' +�,1��
' r - � - .. .. - %:- - . ; �`. • y-• • Hca%•: ,Y!t : , ,; �, ty:-i .. � � •- - .. . _ ��r.,i^'
l -
Attachment
:Lute =�
• � j
i
..... ,:, s • �d,:.. '�•' ' ..I�1'�; :' L� f, �. '.�f d•�i.'.-'i'�`K,F; r.r1"cf • �y�-i+ '�+rr aR;t: •F:• z4�F!ta?'.�. :'i'�;;"''k�a�'r" r-• ' -C^^.Y1r =ri.:; .•?.
_,_ y �. n .. «. ' 1:•� t � .< yw �•a....: r4 ti �►,• .� r ? �` • :�?.• •'•r .. ir:;i� ri_ 4:.�• k f . �.
�, f - - a ' r � �'r ��. t �. �,i; � Fj ��;. y,�at •�.?1£4�'. v .'K ��`;r.. �. '.i;'.a . '��' •r � ..`•�.: .7 c7�"yi� .i i-' , • _
s. �L. •.t. �7 � nI ,i, :. .lf•. � if
•yr fs•: - • l:` .. - 'r1t ,,: 2 f •t. •., _ � 1�,' :#�.� • . �",•. ' a."�' �•: '�•..•��_ _. � Z' arts'• •i`
t 1 c;r5r • � � • " p� ' is � a.r; , r C.x: _ '�`".•�r.: ii'
` � `- - ' .. ..'r: - r:. • . a '�' -:i.':r. aY •T� ��i^�n .. �.,.'.;;>,1?' :��'••a. Y• s.?•'r`_.�•'� �� . ��-.:�.- �� r .u917i'�:,c.`• ���
•• i�1- . � • . ` .. ' f' .._ .. , - . , k�''6 u.,� .:ri ' � �... .... _ .,:: -. r '-1..:r�•.t.-+s�•+SW. - >� r :... ..: 7y � .• � _.-� . .. . �•= - -. �` .:�1-.
$h•—r`r,,� •r'�"`�iy SIT
� �;
V L�91^�VM
---M
.H6 �i a i+.iii"u�'y ' +� X !r �•. V. r+rlo�.+A�� DC7'` t / 1 r
�._ 7 �� ► '� � {!r .Tr.y ��q wi.''1i5�.�if4. 17F�:.�7rt.� i AY.:•.•_ �h.' ��7 �i�r• -� � ��'��.. r�l
+" `�'•�� '^"►��'�i� `�� �I �� � �+�i+�1f'�`��'+'e��1i'!" 1��r�_� '�ti � '•aye 'rim �• flilll%+4�*1 � �Ifl�y �`��"3������ ��� ,1 �
04zA M.'.
—.;r- ���� ~��`°�: �M�?���� _J��,,;,,� �r +1—1I�.r,. ,.fir• - �_�� .�`�•-.��,,_ , /~j_I ���y '� ��'R��`±}/ � � 't�V ��"""^^�v
1i Ufa/! t _ 4+� + ��� ~'^� t r f� •111+��r 04i�r!Ll
�� �� �t t . r' r n' ' �:�l1�x•Ti�i� ISP Ja1L, ��� _ � � wQom` �f ~ T� k1� J�� . , i r � � ��l •!1R! � .rr �ie� � '�!!� f" F.j '
� � r
Imp
�� I ' �+�fraa�„ H ��r,�j'F /e ,. �';�'_=� L�1ki:#r moi• vr� w.-. � �ri� � �,•r r'�"' r�
Wit 111MY
LOA
Rig
Ali -
rti -w- �aPi►
Attachment "C"
1�
• r
:Lute =�
• � j
i
..... ,:, s • �d,:.. '�•' ' ..I�1'�; :' L� f, �. '.�f d•�i.'.-'i'�`K,F; r.r1"cf • �y�-i+ '�+rr aR;t: •F:• z4�F!ta?'.�. :'i'�;;"''k�a�'r" r-• ' -C^^.Y1r =ri.:; .•?.
_,_ y �. n .. «. ' 1:•� t � .< yw �•a....: r4 ti �►,• .� r ? �` • :�?.• •'•r .. ir:;i� ri_ 4:.�• k f . �.
�, f - - a ' r � �'r ��. t �. �,i; � Fj ��;. y,�at •�.?1£4�'. v .'K ��`;r.. �. '.i;'.a . '��' •r � ..`•�.: .7 c7�"yi� .i i-' , • _
s. �L. •.t. �7 � nI ,i, :. .lf•. � if
•yr fs•: - • l:` .. - 'r1t ,,: 2 f •t. •., _ � 1�,' :#�.� • . �",•. ' a."�' �•: '�•..•��_ _. � Z' arts'• •i`
t 1 c;r5r • � � • " p� ' is � a.r; , r C.x: _ '�`".•�r.: ii'
` � `- - ' .. ..'r: - r:. • . a '�' -:i.':r. aY •T� ��i^�n .. �.,.'.;;>,1?' :��'••a. Y• s.?•'r`_.�•'� �� . ��-.:�.- �� r .u917i'�:,c.`• ���
•• i�1- . � • . ` .. ' f' .._ .. , - . , k�''6 u.,� .:ri ' � �... .... _ .,:: -. r '-1..:r�•.t.-+s�•+SW. - >� r :... ..: 7y � .• � _.-� . .. . �•= - -. �` .:�1-.
$h•—r`r,,� •r'�"`�iy SIT
� �;
V L�91^�VM
---M
.H6 �i a i+.iii"u�'y ' +� X !r �•. V. r+rlo�.+A�� DC7'` t / 1 r
�._ 7 �� ► '� � {!r .Tr.y ��q wi.''1i5�.�if4. 17F�:.�7rt.� i AY.:•.•_ �h.' ��7 �i�r• -� � ��'��.. r�l
+" `�'•�� '^"►��'�i� `�� �I �� � �+�i+�1f'�`��'+'e��1i'!" 1��r�_� '�ti � '•aye 'rim �• flilll%+4�*1 � �Ifl�y �`��"3������ ��� ,1 �
04zA M.'.
—.;r- ���� ~��`°�: �M�?���� _J��,,;,,� �r +1—1I�.r,. ,.fir• - �_�� .�`�•-.��,,_ , /~j_I ���y '� ��'R��`±}/ � � 't�V ��"""^^�v
1i Ufa/! t _ 4+� + ��� ~'^� t r f� •111+��r 04i�r!Ll
�� �� �t t . r' r n' ' �:�l1�x•Ti�i� ISP Ja1L, ��� _ � � wQom` �f ~ T� k1� J�� . , i r � � ��l •!1R! � .rr �ie� � '�!!� f" F.j '
� � r
Imp
�� I ' �+�fraa�„ H ��r,�j'F /e ,. �';�'_=� L�1ki:#r moi• vr� w.-. � �ri� � �,•r r'�"' r�
Wit 111MY
LOA
Rig
Ali -
rti -w- �aPi►
Attachment "C"
X
m
R
I
Lu
_' .�1 �°#,� rr►fir � � - - � � �' - .�. _ � . �,,;�+�'r� �'"�" � �r i �]�r� .
MA
■1 r r { r � It � i
spy
�n� ^ ^ +� -WE
wn FROM�•No
low
WA
Mal
lip
NN
L J. L J. L J
Osos Street
r 1 f r T T T T T T i
Ouse
Attachment T)y
738 Nlpuara 5
San Luis obis
MI
W-VUI-3W
faxoOSSM-A
1 N
AS50CIArc
Architecture
Interior Design
Environmental Graphics
Client:
City of San Luis Obisl
Project.
Downtown
Superstop
Sheet Contents:
Potential Bus Locatioi
Drawn by. J.M.
Checked by. C.C.
Date: 10 Feb. 199
Revised.
ftsaplans and spearrcaricns are insow
ofservviceprepa�ed locawacf cansurxr,
wvwkandshell be used only undersps6fi
a 8m8At wirh InsireAssociates. Coro.
shelf verify ail dimer+sionsand "ling
toidil-, Repot any disrrepar+cies m 6
Associarasprior to CVWWxing the wart
,lob No: SLO-9601
Sheet No:
i
,.
b
U)
0
f
T}
T
T
T
T
T
l
Attachment T)y
738 Nlpuara 5
San Luis obis
MI
W-VUI-3W
faxoOSSM-A
1 N
AS50CIArc
Architecture
Interior Design
Environmental Graphics
Client:
City of San Luis Obisl
Project.
Downtown
Superstop
Sheet Contents:
Potential Bus Locatioi
Drawn by. J.M.
Checked by. C.C.
Date: 10 Feb. 199
Revised.
ftsaplans and spearrcaricns are insow
ofservviceprepa�ed locawacf cansurxr,
wvwkandshell be used only undersps6fi
a 8m8At wirh InsireAssociates. Coro.
shelf verify ail dimer+sionsand "ling
toidil-, Repot any disrrepar+cies m 6
Associarasprior to CVWWxing the wart
,lob No: SLO-9601
Sheet No:
i
' Yah,•-�.• -:yZ
March 25, 1997
MAR
CITYr COUNCIL
v . - .1-1
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 - 1145
Phone / Fax (805) 545 - 5919
Other offices in Switzerland and Poland
Re: Multi -Modal Transit Center, Meeting of April 9, 9:00 MEETING AGENDA0606
Dear Honorables and Colleagues, DATE _F- ,--ITEM # i7T'�r6-
Unfortunately, I am out of town during this important meeting. I have designed many multi -modal centers
and I enjoyed the work in the stakeholders group as well as the input of consultants.
I believe that we should be very cautious in proceeding with the two alternatives now on the table. There
are other &ernatjy which keep the fulLpu[s-e-domtQys+.Leven-forlegi-anal b.use-s-. There are short-term
(enclosure 1) as well as long-term alternative solutions.
The currently proposed location for the multi -modal center presents several problems. These include:
• the degradation of service levels to many transit users
• aesthetic impact on Railroad Square/Santa Barbara Street area (enclosure 2)
• neighborhood impacts of buses routed on Osos Street (roughly 100 buses per day)
• traffic engineering challenges presented by geometry of Morro Street/Santa Barbara Street
intersection and a signalized intersection at High Street
The layover problem of the regional buses could be solved elsewhere, e.g., at the Prado Rd. garage,
where buses can be serviced during layovers (of course, a layover facility at the railroad site could make
sense if a bus garage was built there). In the short-term, we need two more bus stops but fight_ a±Dnt of
thecaitmad_atatien..
According to Nelson -Nygaard, over one-third of the City would lose direct rapid access to the downtown if
some of the discussed schemes were implemented. The current proposals seem to ignore the needs of
transit users in a rush to spend money. If San Luis Obispo can not come up with a user-friendly solution,
then it is the responsibility of the COG to see that this money is spent on better projects elsewhere in the
County.
Before we reach any conclusions, I would suggest that the Federal Transit Administration (Mr. Lawrence
Schulmann in Washington D.C.) be contacted. This agency is experienced in multi -modal centers and
they provide matching funds for gQod s9lutLo.na under their "Livable Communities Initiative."
I add a list of relevant questions (enclosures 3 and 4) which, in my opinion, have only been partially
addressed to date.
Independently from the above matter, I invite interested persons to a relevant event which may help us to
see the broader picture (enclosure 5).
VI OUNGIL
,X11 r
Thank you for your consideration.
,PC o
D FII aIR
Sincerely,
V.
1►T ORNE'
❑ FIRE CHIEF ' 'r ��
2(PWDIR
CLEAKI+Q4IC3
M0M7'
❑ POLICE GHF
r TEA"
Q REC DIR
Eugene H. Jud
❑ Fi 11 FILA
❑ UVL DIP
enclosures
,
r
c: SLO City Council, Board of Supervisors, SLOCOG, SLO City and County Planning and Public Works Depts., BIA, Chamber
of Commerce, Sierra Club, RQN, John Ewan
Lw k G�o .r4►re
C JAz v r -y-r- n17 � r � ��
� 7�cr-blew e -F CA,.!'pl'tr c� n/z, -7�a4eS,s//PeW �,,e
11P)l
1. .1 L*/s T/ l / 6- S/ T�
(ir 6�fPrl �
L-8- . P4 L M .STc� �E l _I .
,� 1 Z -z
c y 17
�o
%v�
.
-A.
64
jell,
P
Rdf, 6,C4 ��-
r-
e
�* !� XIV
rolee �0 e4
e
-
?.%x`' v .
AZZ4,,4p a�ar
Nj
a
v:
Y
MEMO
February 8, 1997
FR:
Eugene Jud
RE:
Multi -Modal Tra"sit Center
A.
Sugaestions
Before our conclusions are drawn and presented to the Councils, the following should happen:
Nels-oMl-y�gaard and Mev�r-Mohaddea should present their views to the stakeholder's group.
Meyer-Mohaddes, who is now working on the downtown parking and access study has public
transportation included in their terms of reference.
i 2)
The mail atakeholdez, namely the bus passenger, must be heard too, either by sending a
representative to our group or students taking 300 interviews at the existing transfer facility about
the buses,
the acceptance of the new project. Handicapped people and cyclists who use regional
,;.
as well as the bus drivers, should also give substantial input.
�k
Y
3)
If we do not find agreement in the stakeholders group, a minority opinion- should be conveyed to
the Councils in an appropriate way.
r ' B.
twDitant (questions
So far the bus riders have not been informed at all of what is being planned. We must be ready to answer
„:.
the following
questions:
1)
Do you know of any town in the world which has taken awell-functioning pulse system out of its
downtown?
2)
Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara and Oxnard have a downtown pulse system which includes
Greyhound and other overland buses. These multi -modal facilities were built by using or closing
.. ;
existing -51m -eta and by incorporating public or private land. Why can we not do the same?
j
The road system of downtown SLO offers a lot of flexibility. As in 1969, we should have the
courage to close one or several stretches of road to private through traffic. Does anybody regret
having Mission Plaza today instead of private traffic in front of the Mission?
3)
We have an on-going Parkin rdy withnunubfic-baadnga (hopefully charrettes)
scheduled for this Spring. Meyer-Mohaddes took surveys about alternative modes of
'l`-T'
j
transportation which are now being analyzed. How can we draw final conclusions about the multi—
'"' `'"
modal transit center without considering the input of this study?
.1
4)
Instead of moving the buses out of the downtown, why not reduce (long-term) parking in and
around downtown and use the land along the railway far aarK (overflow/park and ride)?
5)
Don't we have a good opportunity to stay with a win _% as we have a functioning
€
downtown pulse system and money from SLOCOG to improve and beautify this system? This
'
would be in full accordance with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element as well as the
";,1
recent City Council decisions about the budget.
�y
cZP
MULTI -MODAL TRANSIT CENTER
Stakeholders meeting of June 11, 1996
A. SITUATION TODAY
What is wrong with today's downtown bus center?
1)SSZmI�Cfl
1.1 It assures short travel times for bus passengers because the "pulse -time" is the same time used
for lengthy passenger boarding including wheelchairs, bikes, etc. (Overhead 1) -
1.2 Itis an easy -to -understand operation (no reading of schedules).
1.3 The bus has a much-needed high visibility thanks to the downtown pulse system.
1.4 Passengers have short walking distances from bus to bus.
1.5 It is environmentally -friendly as long as drivers shut off the engine,
1.6 There are some activity centers nearby such as the City and County government.
1.7 It does not interfere with deliveries to shops, etc.
2) fit�kh�� ars wl<�Qn:
2.1 Passengers must cross roads with traffic, sometimes missing the connecting bus.
2.2 Shops, banks, tourist offices and ticketing could be closer and more convenient.
2.3 Greyhound and other buses should have stops there.
B. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NEW MULTI -MODAL TRANSIT CENTER
1) Can a pulse system work outside downtown in a city the size of SLO? i
2) Will the new system:
2.1 Generate shorter travel times for the riders?
2.2 Be easier to understand than today?
2.3 Be more convenient than today because of shorter walks between bus bays and bus/rail
connections?
2.4 Offer more security in the evening?
2.5 Be more visible (for advertising effect)?
2.6 Create more ridership?
2.7 Save operating costs (bus miles, maintenance, etc.)?
2.8 Bring more farebox irfcome?
I'm
MULTI -MODAL TRANSIT CENTER
Stakeholders meeting of June 11, 1996
A. SITUATION TODAY
What is wrong with today's downtown bus center?
1.1 It assures short travel times for bus passengers because the "pulse -Lime" is the same time used
for lengthy passenger boarding including wheelchairs, bikes, etc. (0'im ead 1)
1.2 It is an easy -to -understand operation (no reading of schedules).
1.3 The bus has a much-needed high visibility than to the downtown pulse system.
1.4 Passengers have short walking distances from bus to bus.
1.5 It is environmentally -friendly as long as drivers shut off the engine.
1.6 There are some activity centers nearby such as the City and County government.
1.7 It does not interfere with deliveries to shops, etc.
2) B!.!t_tbaLe are wcaau p�oats._:
2.1 Passengers must cross roads with traffic, sometimes missing the connecting bus.
2.2 Shops, banks, tourist offices and ticketing could be closer and more convenient.
2.3 Greyhound and other buses should have stops there.
B• QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NEW MULTI -MODAL TRANSIT CENTER
1) Can a pulse system work'outside downtown in a city the size of SLO? i
2) Will the new system:
2.1 Generate shorter travel times for the riders?
2.2 Be easier to understand than today?
2.3 Be more convenient than today because of shorter walks between bus bays and bus/rail
connections?
2.4 Offer more security in the evening?
2.5 Be more visible (for advertising effect)?
2.6 Create more ridership?
2.7 Save operating costs (bus miles, maintenance, etc.)?
2.8 Bring more farebox irfcome?
I'm
ek to ,r..* S
March 24, 1997
Re: Invitation for a Presentation
Dear Honorables and Collegues,
1228 A Palm Street, P.O. Box 1145
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 - 1 145
Phone / Fax (805) 545 - 5919
Other offices in Switzerland and Poland
On Friday April 11, Mr. Stan Clauson, APA, the Planning Director for the City of
Aspen, CO, will be visiting San Luis Obispo to give a presentation to transportation
and planning professionals as well as other interested individuals.
Aspen has implemented some of the U.S.'s most advanced transportation innovations
including well -utilized and efficient transit and a pedestrian oriented downtown with highly
managed auto parking. Aspen, with a population of under 6,000, is also on the verge of
building a light rail transit system that would serve nearby ski areas and communities. Mr.
Clauson has been one of the leaders in Aspen's development of these transportation and
planning innovations.
Mr. Clauson will present highly relevant information concerning :
• downtown parking and access issues
• multi -modal (bus/ light rail) terminals
• regional transportation planning
• political and financial considerations in transportation planning
Mr. Clauson's program will be as follows:
• 8:10 - 9:00 - Speech with slides at Cal Poly, Bldg. 21, Rm. 235 (near Dexter Lawn)
• 12:45 - 2:00 - Lunch in downtown at Thai Palace (across from Hudson's Grill and
adjacent to the Court Street Parking Lot).
(16 guests can join us for each of the two events. Please confirm your attendance by calling the above
phone number. Guest will be responsible for paying for their own lunch.)
• 2:00 - 3:00 - (Tentative) Slide Presentation in City/ County Library.
(I am looking for some organization to promote this presentation as I am unable. If you would like to
sponsor this event, please contact me at the above number.)
I hope that you will be able to participate in what proves to be a unique learning
experience.
Sincerely,
4:�faoov�,� //1 zgewoe_
Eugene H. Jud
Jud Consultants
c: SLO City Council, Board of Supervisors, SLOCOG, SLO City and County
Planning and Public Works Depts., BIA, APCD, Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club,
ECOSLO, RQN
U