HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/1991, C-4 - SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN/TROLLEY EVALUATION ��������utullilllpli IIIC� �city f San lues OBISp0
Item No.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT '_ y
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrativ Officer �=
Prepared by: Harry Watson, Transit ManagerA/
SUBJECT: Short Range Transit Plan/Trolley Evaluation
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Receive and File the Trolley Evaluation portion of the Short
Range Transit Plan.
2 . Direct staff to prepare specifications for the acquisition of
a heavy duty vehicle to use as the City's primary trolley.
DISCUSSION:
Background
Short Range Transit Plan. The City is currently in the process of
producing a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) , which will provide
transit direction through the year 1996. The SRTP is being
completed by the consulting firm of Nelson/Nygaard. The scope of
the study, as approved by the City Council, is to address the
following main issues:
1. Preparation of a Five Year Transit Development Plan.
2. Assess alternatives for the relocation of the Transit Transfer
Center.
3 . Trolley Program Evaluation
Items 1 and 2 above will be presented to the City's Mass
Transportation Committee and City Council this Spring. Work on
Item 3 has _been accelerated, as discussed below.
Trolley Program Evaluation. When the City Council approved the
pilot trolley program on April 4, 1990, the plan for decision
making concerning a permanent program was as follows:
1. The pilot program was to run from July 1990 through October
22, 1990, during which time a significant amount of
information would be generated concerning the use and
operation of the demonstration program.
2 . At the conclusion of the demonstration program, this
information would be fully evaluated as a part of the trolley
component of the Short Range Transit Plan. There was to be
a break in the service during this period of evaluation, with
service started again only if the City Council approved the
creation of a permanent program.
city of San Lr.6 OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page Two - SRTP
Due to the early success of the trolley program, the pilot period
was extended through the conclusion of 1990 to allow for the
evaluation during the non-tourist and holiday months. During this
period of time, the consultant was directed to complete the trolley
evaluation component of the SRTP first, so that it could provide
direction to the City at the earliest possible time regarding the
operation and recommended equipment needs of a long term trolley
service. Again, the goal was to minimize any potential break in
service.
i
I
However, rather than wait for the total completion of the
consultant's evaluation, in November 1990 all trolley evaluation !
data developed to that point was presented to the City Council.
This was done so that Council would have the opportunity to
completely avoid a break in service, which would have occurred at i
the conclusion of the calendar year. The November staff evaluation
was prepared in coordination with the SRTP consultant, and
consequently the attached completed trolley evaluation primarily
supports and expands upon conclusions presented to the City Council
at that time.
Purpose of This Staff Report
Because the SRTP is a Council approved activity, it is necessary
that Council receive and file the trolley evaluation component of i
the report. No decision is being requested regarding the j
evaluation, as the City Council has already approved the
implementation of a permanent trolley program. j
As a part of that approval, staff was directed to immediately
purchase a used "back-up" trolley vehicle to replace the current
i leased vehicles. This purchase has occurred, and the back-up
vehicle is now in service. It will serve as the program's primary
trolley until a new vehicle can be acquired. The decision
requested in this staff report relates to the kind of new vehicle
which should be acquired by the City.
i
Prior to addressing that issue, staff would like to summarize the
key findings of the SRTP's trolley evaluation.
I j
Summary of Key SRTP Findings
Ridership
The Nelson/Nygaard evaluation states: "Compared with other trolley
systems, the SLO Trolley has the best productivity of any such
system in the nation, including the larger systems offered in San
Antonio and Austin, Texas. "
r
21)� crty of san Luis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page Three - SRTP
Although the ridership has dropped off considerably from the peak
summer months (by approximately 40%) , most of the drop can be
attributed to the lack of tourists riding the trolley. In a
ridership survey that was conducted in January 1991, the consultant
found that the numbers of City and County residents riding the
trolley. (8,000 -10,000 per month) nearly matched those during the
summer months.
Hours of Operation
Because of this drop in ridership, the study shows that the City
should experiment with flexible hours throughout the year allowing
for more hours of operation during the summer months and a reduced
number of hours during the winter months. Staff concurs and has
already decreased operating hours from 9:30 a.m. to 5: 30 p.m. to
10:00 a.m. to 5: 00 p.m. Ridership between 5:00 & 5: 30 has averaged
less than 3 over the past 2 months. Further adjustments will be
made as the elastic demand dictates.
Trolley Routing
It was found that the City's current core service route best serves
the needs of the downtown area. By tieing in both of the parking
structures, all of the surface lots and most long-term metered
areas, it allows for a "one-stop" shopping experience. Although
there could be some advantage in expanding the route to Pacific
Street, the resulting longer headway would decrease ridership
overall:
The report also found that the trolley is an extension of our fixed
route system. As the report states: "It is interesting to note
that 29% of all boardings and alightings occur at the transit
center stop and the high activity at this stop indicates that
transit passengers who have paid fares on other routes, are riding
the trolley for downtown circulation. " As one would expect, the
boardings and lightings on Higuera and Monterey were also very high
with lower Marsh Street receiving the fewest number of boardings.
However, ridership on Marsh is expected to increase as parking in
the new garage increases, and as further efforts are made to market
the trolley as a parking aide.
Trip Purposes
The consultant felt that it was clear from the number of packages
carried by tourists that many riders got off the trolley to shop
and then continue their tourist activities. Nelson/Nygaard pointed
out that the free fare encourages visitors to shop at various
locations in the downtown area and to extend their stay visiting
multiple attractions, rather than just the Mission and then leaving
the area.
�����ir�►i�i�illllllllluIII,
1�1 city Of san L..6 OBISPO
MMIRMINA
WaRaMNOW" COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page Four - SRTP
Many residents were found to use the trolley as an intricate part
of the transit system in the downtown area, allowing them to visit j
multiple shopping locations and enabling them to park in the
outlying areas which offer free parking within a comfortable
walking distance from the trolley route. The consultant also found
that the number of young children on the trolley is considerably
higher than would be expected for a typical transit service, and
stated that "It is probable that the parents with children are
making use of the trolley to assist them with downtown errands. "
Comparative Analysis
The vendor compared SLO Trolley against six operations around the
country and annualized our operation against their performance.
The report states: "Even when compared with the larger cities of j
Austin and San Antonio which have well established trolley systems,
the San Luis Obispo system serves more riders per hour and more
riders per mile than any other system, despite the dropoff in
winter riders. "
Trolley Service Plan
Fare Collection
The report states: "Free fare circulation zones are not uncommon
in urban areas. Free transit encourages use, and has the greatest i
opportunity to meet the goals of reduced congestion and reduced
I
parking demand in the urban core. " The conclusions reacted in
supporting the continuation of a free fare were: (1) free fare is
important to maintaining high ridership levels, (2) the trolley
encourages ridership on other transit routes, (3) charging a fare
reduces the trolley to a tourist attraction.
Contribution from Business Community
I I
The consultant states that it would be reasonable to request a
contribution from downtown businesses in support of the trolley
j program. Although an option to pursue such a contribution was
outlined in the November 20 staff report, staff was not directed
to require such support as a condition of implementing a permanent
program. Given other current cost pressures on the City's business
community in general, and on the downtown in particular, staff
recommends no change in the current fully City supported program.
However, staff believes that business support should be strongly
considered, if the program is ever proposed for expansion. j
+�����iiVfillllllll��aII�III city of San LUIS OBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page Five - SRTP
Vehicle Needs
The study points out that there are two types of trolley vehicles
available today. A light duty vehicle built on a truck chassis and
a heavy duty vehicle which is built as a passenger carrying transit
vehicle. The light duty vehicle will carry 31 seated and nine
standing and has a design life of five years. The heavy duty
vehicle carries 35 seated and 20 standing and the design life is
10 years.
The consultant report states: "Current peak passenger requirements
argue for the heavy duty vehicle. Although they cost nearly twice
as much as a truck conversion, they are designed for the loads that
will be carried and will result in much lower ongoing maintenance
and operating cost. The heavy duty trolley is recommended, with
transit subframe and air suspension designed to carry the loads
that are currently found on the trolley. "
Staff Recommended Primary Vehicle
Staff concurs with the consultant Nelson/Nygaard that the purchase
of a heavy duty vehicle would be preferable to a light duty
vehicle. The advantages and disadvantages of the two types are:
Cateoory Heaw Dutv Liaht Duty
Advantages:
Capacity 55 adults 40 adults
Primary fife 10 years 5 years
Miles per gallon 12 6
Engine Life 250,000-300,000 miles 100,000-125,000 miles
Transmission Life 250,000-300,000 miles 100,000-125,000 miles
Suspension Air Spring
Wheel/Chair Lift Stepwell Exterior platform
Disadvantages:
Cost $150,000-170,000 $92,000-100,000
Size Larger than current Same as current
trolley trolley
Fuel Diesel Gasoline
Fuel Cost $1.40/gal $1.10/gal
Our success during the summer tourist season is the driving factor
in Staff's recommendation of the heavy duty trolley. Quite simply,
the light duty vehicle will not hold up to the demand put on it by
the numbers of people that we need to carry. Over the long term,
the fuel efficiency that the heavy duty vehicle offers would be
substantial. As in most decisions, there are tradeoffs. The heavy
������►'�i►�►iillllll��' i���1111 city of san L_.4s osIspo
IMMi COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page Six - SRTP
I
duty unit is a little larger and, of course, it is diesel powered.
We will try to mitigate the diesel issue by routing the exhaust up
and out the rear as we do with our buses. Additionally, the new
1991 diesel units are technologically superior to anything
previously available from a clean air standpoint.
Demonstration
A light duty vehicle was demonstrated for Staff and Council members
in the Fall of 1989. The City's leased units, Wally and 011y, and
the current City-owned backup trolley, are representative of the
light duty trolley. Staff has arranged for a demonstration on
March 12 of the heavy duty transit trolley.
I
FISCAL IMPACT:
The capital investment is in the range between .$92, 000 and
$170, 000. This is consistent with the November staff report in
which the City Council decided to make the shuttle service a
permanent part of our transit system.
Revenues are available to cover this expenditure from an approved
Federal Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) grant in
the amount of $33 , 060. The balance is from the fund balance
i carryover (TDA,) for FY 1990-91.
NEST STEP:
If Council approves the Staff recommendation, specifications will
be developed for Council approval, and the bid process will be
initiated immediately thereafter. The timing of the actual
expenditure of funds will occur depending on the successful
vendor's ability to produce the trolley.
ATTACHMENT:
Trolley Evaluation
!
f:treval
i
Nelson Ogaard
CONSULTING ASSOCIATES
February 3, 1991
Mr. Harry Watson
Transit Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dear Harry,
Enclosed please find our final evaluation of the San Luis Obispo
"OLD SLO TROLLEY" service. We believe this final report reflects
the comments we received on the draft version by providing
expanded analysis based on our January data collection.
Despite a decline in ridership during the winter months , the
trolley continues to be a "stand-out" for services of this type,
compared with others around the country. Our team could not find
another trolley service that came close to yours in terms of
productivity, including both large and small cities .
I am hopeful that the trolley will become a permanent addition
and an asset to both residents and visitors to San Luis Obispo.
The recommendations included in the report are intended to assist
you in making the transition to integrating the trolley into
regular service.
Sincerely,
Z -
Bonnie Weinstein Nelson
Senior Partner
206 Missouri Street • San Francisco • CA 94107 • (415) 621-3270
San Luis Obispo
Old SLO Trolley Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tonic Pave
Executive Summary i
INTRODUCTION 1
SERVICE DESCRIPTION 1
RIDERSHIP 3
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 12
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 15
TROLLEY SERVICE PLAN 18
FIGURES
1 . SLO Trolley Route 2
2 . Passengers Per Hour 4
3 . Start Times of Trips with No Passengers 5
4 . Average Riders by Day of Week 4
5 . Boarding and Alighting by Stop 7
6 . Trolley Usage Patterns 8
7 . Ridership by Faretype 9
8 . What is the Trolley Used For 11
9 . Proposed Goals and Objectives 14
10 . Comparative Analysis 16
11 . Productivity Analysis - Comparative 17
12. Industry Experience With Free Fare 19
13 . Performance With and Without Fare 21
San Luis Obispo
Old SLO Trolley Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In its first four months of operation, the San Luis Obispo Trolley
service has exceeded all expectations for ridership and
productivity. Compared with other trolley systems, the SLO Trolley
has the best productivity of any such system in the nation,
including the larger systems offered in San Antonio and Austin, T%.
San Luis ' trolley benefits from a .number of unique factors :
• Excellent year-round weather which makes trolley riding
pleasant all year.
• A thriving downtown, which provides riders with reasons to be
and stay downtown.
• An unusual mix of tourist and local support.
• Relatively high downtown congestion and limited parking
resources, which encourages people to use transit rather than
moving their car from one location to another.
• The trolley fills a market niche for downtown circulation
which is not provided by other transit service.
There is no question that the trolley has been a success in its
initial operation. As the trolley becomes a permanent fixture in
San Luis, a number of operating improvements will be required.
This report makes the following recommendations:
1 . A formal performance monitoring system should be put in place
with unique goals and objectives for monitoring trolley
service.
2 . Free fare operation should be maintained, to continue to meet
system goals .
3 . A permanent trolley fleet should be established. The fleet
should ultimately consist of one light duty trolley, which has
been recently acquired, and one heavy-duty transit trolley
vehicles . The heavy duty trolley, equipped with wheelchair
lift and two tie-down positions, would be the primary vehicle
for this service, especially during the more heavily used
summer months.
4 . The trolley should be continued as a year round service,
although the hours of service may be able to be curtailed
slightly during the winter months .
i
4!
5 . Some attempt should be made to off-set the operating costs of
the trolley through participation of downtown merchants . As
a first step toward developing this public-private
partnership, a survey should be undertaken showing the link
between trolley use and expenditures in the downtown area.
ii
INTRODUCTION
In July, 1990, the City of San Luis Obispo initiated free trolley
service in the downtown area. Service was initiated on a trial
basis to determine whether a high profile, frequent, shuttle style
service could meet a variety of objectives, including:
• Reduce congestion and traffic in downtown San Luis Obispo
• Expand parking availability in the downtown core
• Increase the appeal of downtown to the area's many tourists .
This Technical Memorandum will evaluate the first six months of
trolley operation and will make recommendations for improving
future operations.
SERVICE DESCRIPTION
The Trolley service operates every 15 minutes, from 9 : 30 AM to
5 :30 PM six days per week and noon to 5 : 00 PM on Sundays . Thursday
night operations are extended until 9 :30 PM, to coincide with the
year round Farmer' s Market in downtown San Luis Obispo. Figure 1
shows the primary shuttle route. The Thursday night service is
operated on a modified route. The Thursday night route is designed
to connect the Monterey Street hotel/motel area with the downtown
Farmer' s market area. The primary route covers the downtown core,
and serves outlying parking areas .
The service is currently operated using two leased trolleys . One
trolley is required for routine revenue service, and the other is
used for back-up and overflow, especially on Thursday nights . The
vehicles have a seated capacity of 31 riders with capacity for an
additional 9 standees . These vehicles are nearing the end of their
useful lives , and have proven very expensive to the City, both in
terms of their lease cost and especially in the maintenance they
constantly require.
The City has recently purchased one used trolley which will replace
one of the leased vehicles in revenue service in February, 1991 .
One leased vehicle will be retained for back-up when the
refurbished trolley is placed in service.
Service is operated for the City through a service agreement with
Laidlaw. Laidlaw is the operator of all of the City' s transit
service, in addition to the trolley.
1
Figure 1
SLO TROLLEY ROUTE
CC
9
Mnrrm
Chorrn
i
1
1
q
Broad
RIDERSHIP
This section will evaluate ridership trends on the trolley,
including an evaluation of the trolley' s performance in meeting
the objectives established by the City Council for measuring the
success of the program.
During the months of July through December, the City's Transit
Manager collected statistics on ridership, usage patterns, and
costs of operation for the trolley. These statistics, combined
with two on-board trolley passenger surveys, conducted by the City,
have been used to evaluate the performance .of the trolley. In
addition, a one day ridecheck of the trolley service taken by the
study team on Wednesday, January 23 supplemented City collected
data.
The two on-board passenger surveys cover two distinctly different
service periods: the first survey was conducted in July and August
of this year, during the peak of the tourist season, while the
second survey, conducted in October, reflected a period when fewer
travellers are in San Luis Obispo.
Between July 1 and December 31 of this year, the trolley carried
approximately 76 ,500 passengers . This translates to an average of
approximately 14 passengers per trip, over the six month period.
During the summer months ridership peaked, with approximately 600
passengers per day, or nearly 19 passengers per trip. Ridership
dropped each month after August, levelling off at the current level
of approximately 8000 trips per month. The decline in ridership
during the fall and winter months can be attributed to several
factors including: the decline of tourist traffic, the fact that
early ridership was inflated by a "novelty factor" , and the
beginning of an inclement weather season during which driving and
parking at a final destination may be more important to travellers .
Continued monitoring of the trolley service will be required to
evaluate its effectiveness over an entire year.
Ridership by Time Period - The ridership survey taken by the
study team in January would expect to find trolley ridership at an
all time low. The survey counted a total of 174 daily riders on
the trolley. Average ridership per trip had dropped to less than
10 riders , with several of the trips carrying no riders at all.
Figure 2 on the following page shows trolley ridership by hour of
service during the January survey. The figure shows peak ridership
between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM, when office workers combine with
other shoppers completing downtown errands during the lunch hour.
Two other peaks were experienced - between 1: 30 and 2:30 PM and
between 3: 30 and 4 : 30 PM, although these were somewhat lower than
the lunch hour peak. Shoppers seemed to make up the majority of
passengers during those hours, especially senior citizens and
parents .with children, who may find the trolley preferable to
walking between stops .
3
Figure 2
San Luis Obispo Trolley Evaluation
Passengers Per Hour
Passengers/Hour
40
..............
.:......:...:...
30
20 ... .... . ............
10 _ . .......
0 - 1. 1::::::: : a
10:30 11:30 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30
Hour Ending at Time Shown
Passengers
Data Collected January 23, 1991
4
Several of the trips included in the January survey did not carry
any passengers during the entire loop. Figure 3 lists the start
time at Osos and Palm of each loop that carried no passengers .
Figure 3
Start Times of Trios with No Passencers
9 :32
9:47
12:52
1: 21
2: 27
5:00
5: 17
Both the first two and last two trips of the day carried no riders .
While this ridership pattern may change during the peak months, and
on Thursdays, when the Farmer's Market brings more people to
downtown during the evening hours, the operator indicated that this
is a fairly common occurrence. It may be possible therefore to
reduce the trolley hours slightly during the winter months,
operating from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Ridership by Day of Week - Ridership data collected by the
City included ridership by day of week. Figure 4 summarizes
average ridership by day of week for the traditionally low
ridership months of November and December, 1990 . The Friday and
Saturday immediately following Thanksgiving have been eliminated
from this analysis, because they represented unusually high
ridership days, and would skew the averages for those days . In
addition, the holidays of Thanksgiving and Christmas themselves
have been excluded from the daily averages.
The figure shows that weekend ridership continues to be high during
the winter season. This is probably due to the fact that weekend
travellers continue to visit the City area. In addition, a lively
downtown will attract area residents on weekends, and the more
leisurely pace of weekend activities. allows for parking in one
location and riding the trolley between errands . Weekend ridership
during November and December may have been slightly elevated by
Christmas season shoppers during the period, however, the tendency
for high ridership remained consistent throughout the two month
period.
Thursday ridership is the highest for any of the five weekdays .
This is expected due to the longer service hours and the number of
evening riders on the Farmer' s Market loop. With the exception of
Thursday, ridership declines daily between Monday and Friday.
Despite this trend, there is no clear indication that service is
needed more or less on one day than another, based on the
fluctuations in ridership from one week to the next for the same
day of the week.
5
Figure 4
San Luis Obispo Trolley Evaluation
Average Riders by Day of Week
S00
400
300
7777
20 0 ..... .
100
0
MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN
Day of Week
Avg. Passengers
Novemeber and December 1990 Data
C - Al-AG
6
Trolley Routing - AS part of the January 23 data collection,
boarding and alighting activity was recorded at each trolley stop.
Figure 5 shows the number of riders boarding or alighting the
trolley at each stop where activity occurred. Stops with no
activity are not included on the Figure.
Figure 5
Trolley Boardings and Alightinas by Ston
SLOD Boardings Alightincs Total Activity % Total
Transit Center 55 45 100 29%
Higuera/Nipomo 18 30 48 14
Broad/Monterey 27 19 46 13
Higuera/Chorro 19 13 32 9
Marsh/Chorro 12 9 21 6
Garden/Higuera 9 10 19 5
Higuera/Board 8 7 15 4
Monterey/Nipomo 5 7 12 3
Palm/Chorro 1 6 7 2
Broad/Palm 1 4 5 1
Marsh/Morro 1 3 4 1
Marsh/Osos 0 3 3 1
Higuera/0sos 1 2 3 1
Morro/Higuera 2 0 2 1
Monterey/Chorro 1 1 2 1
Court/Higuera 0 1 1 1
Garden/Marsh 0 1 1 1
It is interesting to note that 29% of all boardings and alightings
occur at the Transit Center stop. While no fare is charged on the
trolley itself, the high activity level at this stop indicates that
transit passengers, who have paid fares on other routes, are riding
the trolley for downtown circulation.
Boardings outside of the transit center were heaviest on Higuera
and Monterey Streets, which have the greatest concentration of
retail development. The segment with the lightest level of
passenger activity was the lower Marsh Street area. This is to be
expected given the lack of generators on this segment, however,
routing the trolley along this segment is consistent with the need
to get from one retail area to another.
Who Rides the Trolley - During the first six months of
operation, the trolley proved itself a success among residents and
tourists alike. Figure 6 shows the distribution of ridership
between local residents and tourists during the two survey periods.
The figure reveals a core group of City and County riders that
remains relatively unchanged despite the season, while out-of-
county riders more than doubled during the summer months . Tourists
accounted for 40% of trolley riders during the summer months,
followed by City residents at 38%, and County residents at 22% .
7
�- / 7
Figure 6
Trolley Usage Patterns
Who is Using the Trolley
% of Riders
120
............................. ..............
100 - /.............
80
................. .............
60 -
............... .. _.......
40 -
.............. ..............
20 -
0
July/August 1990 September/Oct 1990
Average Ridership/Month
Tourist ® City Residents
County Residents
8
In contrast, City residents dominated trolley ridership during
September and October (48% ) , followed by County residents at 34%
and tourists at 18%. Ridership during the winter months is
expected to follow this pattern, with tourist ridership climbing
in the spring and peaking during the summer months .
During the January survey, data was collected on the "fare type"
of the rider. Although no fares are actually charged on the
trolley, data collectors recorded whether the rider was an adult
(excluding college student) , student (including college student) ,
senior citizen and/or handicapped, or child under the age of 5 .
The survey provided a ridership breakdown as follows:
Figure 7
Trolley Ridershiv by Faretype
FareMwe # Riders % Riders
Adult, Non-Student 101 58%
Student 4 2%
Senior/Handicapped 33 19%
Children < 5 Years 36 21%
Total 174 100%
The number of young children on the trolley is considerably higher
than would be expected for a typical transit service. It is
probable that parents with children are making use of the trolley
to assist them with downtown errands . Families, both of local
residents and tourists, may take their children on the trolley as _
an outing in itself, or as part of an outing to the Mission, or
other points of interest in the downtown area.
Trip Purpose - The reasons for trolley use vary by the type
of user. Tourists indicated that they use the trolley primarily
as a way to tour downtown. While no official poll was taken, it
was clear from the number of packages carried by tourists that many
respondents got off the trolley to shop and continued their tour.
By offering a free form of transportation, visitors are more likely
to extend their stay in the downtown area, rather than visit a
single attraction, such as the Mission, and leaving the area.
Residents generally do not use the trolley strictly for recreation.
The primary trip purposes for residents included transportation
around downtown, allowing them to visit more than one store on a
shopping trip, and enabling them to park in the outlying areas
which offer free parking within comfortable walking distance of the
trolley route. Based on the ridership breakdown from the January
field observation, it appears that local families are using the
trolley to provide a more enjoyable shopping experience for their
9
(f - y -/ �
children, as well as reducing walking time and distance on shopping
trips which include children.
Figure 8 shows the difference in recreational trolley riding
between the two surveys . The high percentage of recreational
riders ( 75% ) in the first survey reflects the high percentage of
tourists using the trolley. In order to capture the tourist
market, the trolley must have a unique appeal and provide a
visible, inexpensive, frequent service. The unique trolley
vehicle, 15 minute headway and free fare have all helped to attract
tourist riders .
Local residents, on the other hand, look for reliable
transportation. They are more price sensitive, reasoning that they
will walk a few extra blocks if they have to pay a significant
fare. For local residents it is less important that the trolley
look good - rather, it must provide frequent, reliable and
convenient service.
The first six months of trolley experience indicates that SLO
Transit has been able to accommodate both the tourist and local
resident needs for downtown transportation. While ridership
definitely declined during the winter months, along with the
seasonal decline in tourism the trolley continued to carry
reasonable ridership in the downtown core.
10
U)
m
a
C W �11�\�1�1'�\� Q
O
CD U
U
C� ¢ O
(/)
O Q
E
+ ^+ O N N
}
Cl n
CZa.
co
�
0 A
Q c ,-
O
cz
H c�
oLc)
d N
}� C
O
m
D
2
m b2
C LO
O
c0
N
U
CD
Q .
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
This section will evaluate the success of the trolley service in
meeting the performance goals established by the City Council. In
addition, a performance monitoring system is recommended for future
monitoring of the trolley service.
The objectives established by the City Council for the trolley
service were:
• Reduce congestion and traffic in downtown San Luis Obispo.
• Expand parking availability in the downtown core.
• Increase the appeal of downtown to the area's many tourists .
The following sections discuss how well the trolley service appears
to be meeting each of these objectives .
Reduce Downtown Congestion - Congestion in the urban core can
be caused by a variety of factors including:
• Too many cars being driven to downtown destinations .
• Circling for parking spaces and double parking.
• Cars being moved from place to place within downtown.
The survey results indicate that the trolley has been helpful in
controlling all three of the congestion factors cited above. By
providing downtown circulation, residents are more likely to take
a City or regional system bus into the Osos Street transfer center,
and then board a trolley to take them to a downtown destination.
By eliminating the need to park downtown, and providing
transportation from one business to another, transit becomes a more
convenient mode choice than the automobile. In fact, 30% of all
boarding and alighting activity on the trolley occurs at the
Transit Center stop. This would be expected to be a relatively low
activity level stop, given its distance from shopping and parking
facilities . This indicates that the trolley does in fact provide
an important downtown transit link.
In a survey taken by the City, 41% of trolley riders indicated that
the trolley system had assisted them in parking for that day. Of
those who indicated the trolley had assisted them, 50% indicated
that they were able to park out of the downtown core. Thus , less
vehicles are being brought into downtown, and downtown parking
demand is reduced by the trolley system.
The remaining 50% who indicated that the trolley assisted them in
parking, said that they were able to park in one place and not move
their car from store to store. This also has the effect of
decreasing congestion, by eliminating those short auto trips as
cars are moved from space to space.
12
Expand Parking Availability - Parking availability is enhanced
by eliminating the need to park in the downtown core. Given the
results of the survey taken by the City, over 20% of trolley riders
use the trolley because it enabled them to park outside of the
downtown core. Given the six month ridership total of 76,500
passengers, over 15,000 "parking trips" were saved by the trolley
system in that same period.
Increase the appeal of downtown - There is no question that
the trolley enhances the appeal of downtown San Luis Obispo for the
tourist. The presence of economical, fun and convenient
transportation encourages the tourist to remain downtown. This is
proven by the high percentage of "recreational" riders on the
trolley system. For local residents, the trolley system encourages
them to stay downtown, visiting more than one store or business on
their trip, because there is no penalty for getting on and off the
system. In addition over 15% of trolley riders indicated that they
use the trolley to go from their job to a restaurant or business .
While it is impossible to determine how many of those trips might
have been made without the trolley system, it is logical to assume
that improved mobility increases the number of trips within the
downtown core.
The prevalence of children riding the trolley, even during the slow
winter months, indicates that trolley riding is a family activity.
The presence of this attraction for children may motivate families
to spend more time downtown, both sightseeing and shopping.
Proposed Goals and Obiectives - The trolley service has
clearly exceeded expectations in meeting the objectives established
by the City Council during the trial period. As the trolley
becomes a permanent fixture in San Luis Obispo, a quantitative
performance monitoring system is recommended for evaluating
service. Figure 9 presents the proposed performance monitoring
system, specifically targeted at the trolley operation. Other
objectives , such as those for safety and preventative maintenance,
will apply system wide, and will be presented in the short range
transit plan, being developed by Nelson\Nygaard.
13
- y-; 3
a
d
L
O
Y
C
a
q O^O V•^ N 7 0. 07
a ^ C - O.d 07 O uqi a!
L y p T ]1 Cl u
6 d
N 0iQ.NV•^ 7Y C >� Cl
�gp Y
d E a 0 07 T q N
L Lp x
CU
-= q CO.Fa C �1f "7
OL O �� m CL �Q O n O
(J 4) U N H Li OI In
41
a 0) d�N 677 L OI N
11MH�' a q a �U C a= c �+a •L QQ
.0-CN � Cm>�c OL dq qEa E o
0 U
Q 07 T L t N O. N L 01 07 O N rL Y .r
w C 3 N > %0 O.Y. `d aL V q a+ L C 7 N L
E d .� 6�1^r•7 N 3 Y E T �+ q O CU
> L
1•' _ > >
m a o+•^r o
O Y•^
L 7E N L O q N •••'1 q >�N 3 C TN L q C G m
070.0 0.9 O N O Z N q A
xE =.0=o ¢vvm ma Mm .n Ln
C' m Y C
q •^ 67 L
' w am 07 L O
y.� CLLqc Lcw a0) E L
N C (7 01Y 0i OIY) 0i 0)
'�U q W U_ CL C L C CC q C 7a0+ E d d
'o w Q> N� U O O 07 N 07 07 L 07 a L•^ > >
IL_ N W > d N Y U 6) q r \ \
1+1 L N L N E L 090 G O N G L L p. x x
Ol L O/ q E QJ q O O�+ q O C 0i U 0) C q q
A CL L U > CL U V N C.. U- CL N 7 0 4 6
Q
m
.0
a
V
c a u
m > v'
>
V d
ay a u
.� O dw avOi am
N
m q V
Q
$1 01 c
a �-a
^ > C
> L q
L 0)
07 N N
N V
0i C
V L 01
OV
N U•^
C N
q C 01
L 3 L
v p
V
_ d C 0 O
a 3
o >av N
V O Ol L
L 01 0) O
d L C V
V
Qi N
• cz-
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
This section will evaluate San Luis Obispo' s trolley service
compared with other downtown shuttle services . While comparative
analysis is useful because it provides a framework for evaluation,
it is important to note that every service is different, and its
ability to attract riders is based on factors unique to that
service. In addition, data collected on trolley services is spotty
in some cases data on the trolley line(s ) is combined with the
rest of the system and is poorly maintained.
A total of six properties around the country were contacted for
this analysis . They include both small and large cities; tourist
areas, and areas where visitors are not a factor. Figure 10
summarizes the service characteristics of the properties surveyed.
Figure 11 provides a performance comparison between these services
and annualized data based on the first six months of operation in
San Luis Obispo. The table shows the tremendous success of the San
Luis Obispo Trolley when compared to any other service in the
country. Even when compared with the larger cities of Austin and
San Antonio which have well established trolley systems, the San
Luis system serves more rides per hour and more rides per mile than
any other system, despite the dropoff in winter riders.
Among the factors influencing productivity on the San Luis Trolley
are the influence of tourists and the strength of the downtown.
The Chula Vista and Sacramento systems both reported that the
primary users of their systems were senior citizens who would
rather ride the trolley than walk short distances downtown. Only
the Seattle system reported substantial use by tourists , and that
system is primarily tourist oriented, with the exception of lunch
time office workers and ferry commuters who can take the trolley
to and from the ferry.
In Chula Vista, the City Council had hoped that the trolley service
would attract tourists and encourage transit oriented development.
This has not happened. In contrast, San Luis Obispo enjoys an
already vital downtown, which offers both tourists and residents
a full shopping, dining and entertainment experience, made more
accessible by the addition of the trolley. The SLO Trolley' s
popularity is further boosted by the fact that it is the only
downtown circulator route on the system, and by its free fare
policy.
15
>1
AD #
m E a CL # d
L N Ln Ln O Ln Ln Ln Ln # C7 G1
a L N N .r N r� r�Ln # L
# 41
* C:
# 0
>>L
U 7 #
N 1 CU L # 0
Y +J N u # O
O 7 L 3 i
L 3
C r
u uLu0 wcr
m c_ _c; 4JJm_ c c � U
~ Ic LO
O
Ln OL N CD u # 'I S•1
N L N (0 Ln I yO O # O
'^ LL •'+ N CV) u r� Ln Ln d N N
N ,K
#
a * N
c * ,-I
# .1
> L # O
*' c cn * a en
o E
a LL o
L C a Q L ut # O O%
i6 1p • +� LO 1 d O # d Id
CL LO 1 Q QL -W # O Ln r
E (Aw r�Ln ¢ .� 1 n. a C �+ # rn 1 +J
c°v ar a+ ' ^ a Lo ; c ic Ln 41
O
L > O ++ r0 m t0 e0 Ln �O e� E # ea O LO
UL L N en 7 N C C ++ C 13 1 1 I # -0c" C 7 C
.Im•^ N O LO # Ln O1 Ln F- yJ
W N It
L * a
m
4' * O
go
u #
C7 uto
O1 #
Y 10 i0 (A•^ # C.
t O V E O L L10 # N
V CU r r ++ IO L # u
r o
u VI•^ VI VI O) •^ L Ln N.G # >1
•^ N 1A VI (A C C U 7 J a) • E r
> O N 47 67 O O O 10 +J M iL N +J U JJ
d1 Ji V Y V E r E -M.^ C N•^ is L C Qj
VI N
L/f U U u Q r0 O �O N L O d > # V 7 3 O
10 Q t0 L C r Z• O LA C y # aN z
++ L L +� Q L � L L, # O L -0 O
C 4J -+J +J +j ea 7 d E * VI N Z J
J
E W CU a) a) c • d ++ L e0 41 -0 VI 0 # cu c M
Urr Urr Vt U 47 o 67 r LAS # r O -=
•^ C r C r •^ 0 C N ++ y N W +J # U E y C
7
ea O N m O M C CO e0 L LA L U e0 # y L c0 m Q1
L L•^ ^L L +-j •r C +J U r # C C d� f4 O1
U4.+ > u U H 2 i0 VI Q Q 0. # O ea 04 r•1
# aJ
it N
# W �
it
-*% # a �i
r r # o
CL
4J ic
4J OS
r IA +1 r0 C u O.•. #
C D N F— 4• VI L Gl LH N #
_ E c 00 r L r # 7
41 Vf I� 7 u Ln LA 41 41
C C•'• rO r0 S- # C
^ 0 = L c0Y r0 102 wmF- # �0
V Q U N v Ln Ln v Ln v # In
#
#
#
#
#
*
a� IC
v ic
it 4J
ic O1
N N Z Lo Z i#*c
r *
# Lr
# -.4
#
# V
#
7 # 4J
o
It 9
_
It O
coLn N ^ # O U
1� M c0 M -Ac
K O N
01 N 1D cn N •*k LO 'b
S ~ M #
b * �
U
m IC '
D
it 11
ai In # N
� L *
++ O 01 t0 n tO O # O
L S n O1 O -01 N # O >1
b ^ CO CO cn # p N U
to CO CV (71 N it
0 C N 0 •••I
Q
It E-4 34
ta
* a
L #
O N # a) a
N
# U
mLO
* s
Q CD v LO # o4-1
N O
++ z cm
7 N M #
•� c # O X
4J C .M .{
V Q # W y
* O
0 * C
L .*k
CL #
L * >4 N
co O 01 * 00 W
N O M M # O IA SS
co Ln ic
r lO (NJ N M lD # to
to L O co #
# C N
c # O .�
a # .-i
* N �
* m C
� � c
# f] p
#
it N
# a 0 c C(I
# n p 4 p
b N O #
+j O # O
in 4+ C: #
C O Gl # N
3 d V1 # •� N n
c Ec O #
to M4Ln
t o m ro *x to
to N fn # N
TROLLEY SERVICE PLAN
Given the success of the initial pilot service, it is clear that
service should continue. Both the route and frequency of service
seem well suited to the needs of riders. A high frequency of
service is critical to meeting the trolley' s goals .
Given that the trolley operation will continue essentially as it
is now, three issues warrant further consideration:
• Hours of Operation
Fare collection
• Establishing a permanent vehicle fleet
Hours of Operation - The current hours of operation were
developed to accomodate high summer activity levels in San Luis
Obispo. Since August, the first few and last few trips of the day
have often carried no riders. It is therefore recommended that
service hours be slightly reduced between Labor Day and Memorial
Day to 10 :00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Fare Collection - Free fare circulation zones are not uncommon
in urban areas . Free transit encourages use, and has the greatest
opportunity to meet the goals of reduced congestion and reduced
parking demand in the urban core. The brief history of the trolley
in San Luis Obispo County has certainly proven that a free fare
program can attract. a high ridership.
Based on a two-month history of costs compiled by the City, the
Trolley' s operation excluding vehicle lease costs will annualize
at $39, 780 per year. Ridership, at free fare levels would be
expected to be in excess of 150, 000 per year, allowing for
continued tapering off of ridership during winter months . This
results in a projected operating cost per passenger of
approximately $0 . 27 . It should be noted that none of the other
trolley operations included in the comparative analysis had
productivity levels as high as San Luis Obispo' s, and that the
majority of those systems charged a fare.
In the two surveys of trolley riders, a minimum of 70% indicated
a willingness to pay a fare on the trolley. A minimum of forty
percent indicated a willingness to pay up to $ . 25 for trolley fare,
with tourists showing a higher degree of willingness to pay a fare.
Any fare charged for the trolley service would impact local
ridership substantially more than tourist ridership.
While there is no question that charging a fare would result in a
decrease in ridership, there is some question as to the level of
ridership decline. Figure 12 summarizes the experience of other
cities with changes from free-fare to pay-fare systems or vise-
versa .
18
m
m
O .e
dP
$4 +i o rn Ln
Ln 00 r-
$4 + + +
m m
$4 +r1
a� a
N
® m a 0 10 N �4
N + 0 u
m to
� c • 3.4 O -4
•a •.4
ata � " 10 rob > ma
O U U 10 .0 O � �•0 0
. .
+1 4J = 0 '0 (a a1 � •� a) ro
"4 7r 0 � rz ca 3 a) cc N
�C. U 0 O CriJ to O' O
M f0 '0 +-) LT V] •••I fA
Q 14 id LI 14 m C Z U N N
ro C to ?C m to •.a In b
w (2)W Ca 0 a "0 (1) a
a) -44 m u (1) 4.) m W4.)
O s4040v (a roa) u row
14 wrzroca) ws.4a) N w0
W o •a () to m = W m 0 LL
ro to 0
W .,4 0
oa ti 4J
a0 � °i0
a
caw , 4 0 +) •.l
a� ++ .,.i 13 ON =
C 14 S4 m to m
roto Ow aero
V] U a+ 0 cn 3
The table shows dramatic ridership gains when fares are eliminated.
This is primarily due to the high numbers of shopping trips, which
can result in many "ons and offs" for a single passenger. A
Portland study showed that 70% of the trips gained through their
"Fareless Square" implementation were shopping trips, and that
midday, lunch-hour trips represented the peak boarding period for
Fareless Square.
Based on the survey of San Luis Obispo Trolley riders , and on
industry experience, it is estimated that charging a fare on the
trolley will result in a loss of at least 50% of the system's total
riders and as much as 70% of the trolley' s local riders .
Figure 13 estimates annual performance statistics for both a free-
fare and paid fare trolley system. It should be noted that there
would be very little difference in the ridership drop-off expected
for a $ . 10 fare versus a $ . 25 fare. At the $ .10 level, it is
estimated that an additional 10% of riders could be saved.
The results show that the trolley could operate very efficiently
with a $ . 25 fare, and could continue to serve a respectable number
of riders . However, there are several important arguments which
support maintaining the free-fare system.
1 . Free fare is important to maintaining high ridership levels .
Continued success in meeting the goals established by the City
Council is based on maintaining high ridership levels .
Dropping ridership in half to collect a relatively modest fare
is counter-productive to those goals . In fact, the cost per
rider is the same, whether a fare is charged or not, due to
the drop in ridership caused by fare implementation.
2 . The trolley encourages ridership on other routes The SLO
Transit system without the trolley service does not provide
downtown circulation. Approximately 30% of trolley passengers
either board or alight at the Osos Street Transit Center stop.
While it is impossible to know if those passengers are
connecting to City or County transit services , the high level
of activity at this stop would indicate some service linkage.
It is likely that a high percentage of these trolley
passengers would have driven for their entire trip if the
trolley service were not available. The trolley has proven
successful with local riders because it fills a needed market
for downtown circulation.
3 . Charging a fare reduces the trolley to a tourist attraction
As was mentioned above, without the trolley connection, there
is essentially no transit circulation system for San Luis
Obispo. By eliminating 70% of local riders, the trolley will
be reduced to a tourist attraction. At that point, it may no
longer make sense to run the trolley during off-peak seasons ,
which would almost eliminate any trip reduction and parking
demand reduction resulting from trolley service.
20
Figure 13
San Luis Obispo Trolley Service
Estimated Performance Indicators With and Without Fare
Annualized Operating Statistic I. No Fare Charced II. S.25 Fare
Service Miles 21,500 21,500
Service Hours 3 ,000 31000
Operating Cost $40, 000 $40, 000
(excludes vehicle cost)
Ridership 150,000 75,000
Fare Revenues NA $18,750
Farebox Recovery NA 47%
Net Cost $40 , 000 $21,250
Net Cost/Passenger .27 . 28
Net Cost/Hour $13 . 34 $7 . 08
Passengers/Service Hour 50 25
Passengers/Service Mile 6 . 9 3 .5
21
One possible advantage to charging at least a token fare is that
a fare will discourage " joy riding" on the trolley system. The
system is experiencing some problem with transients and school aged
children using the trolley for entertainment. The problem with
excessive use by these groups is that they may take up a
significant amount of capacity without contributing to downtown
businesses . By limiting riders to one trip around the loop,
problems with these riders are greatly minimized, without
discouraging shopper trips .
It may be possible to recover a part of the operating costs through
the business community, especially if the connection between
trolley ridership and retail sales can be more clearly shown. A
jointly financed survey could be conducted, asking not only trip
purpose, but the actual dollar amount spent in downtown as a result
of trolley travel. This information could result in a willingness
to support the trolley, either through donation or formation of a
special assessment district.
Whether or not such recovery is possible, it is recommended that
the free trolley service be retained.
Vehicle Needs - With the commitment to permanent trolley
service, the current vehicle fleet will no longer be acceptable in
San Luis Obispo. Lease payments are carried as part of operating
cost, and the original lease cost of $6, 000 per month was almost
double the operating costs for trolley service exclusive of lease
payments . In addition, the original vehicles were very difficult
to maintain, were not wheelchair accessible, and were not rated for
the loading conditions presented by a successful service.
The City has already taken the first step in eliminating the lease
cost component for this service with the purchase of a used
trolley. The trolley, which is scheduled to be placed in revenue
service in February was purchased at a cost of $43, 000 , and was
paid for by Transportation Development Act funds . With the arrival
of this vehicle, lease costs will be reduced to $1, 000 per month
until the second trolley can be acquired.
While the development of a detailed specification for trolley
equipment is outside of the scope of this study, the following
defines important parameters for the new trolley fleet.
Light vs. Heavy Duty - There are essentially two types of trolley
vehicles on the market today - a light duty vehicle built on a
truck chassis, and a heavy duty vehicle which is built as a
passenger carrying transit vehicle. Lighter duty vehicles such as
the ones currently being operated by SLO Transit carry up to 31
seated passengers and up to 9 standees . They have a design life
of 5 years . Heavy duty• vehicles can carry up to 36 seated
passengers with up to 20 standees . Their design life is 10 years .
22
e - y-3z
Current peak passenger requirements argue for the heavy duty
vehicle. Although they cost nearly twice as much as truck
conversions, they are designed for the loads that will be carried,
and will result in much lower on-going maintenance and operating
costs . Continuing to carry excessive loads on the lighter vehicle
will result in spring wear, and front axle deterioration. In
addition, the longer design life will result in a life cycle cost
that does not exceed the lighter vehicle. The recently purchased
trolley is a lighter duty vehicle which will be adequate for winter
months, when ridership is low. The return to high ridership this
summer will argue for a heavier vehicle.
A heavy duty trolley vehicle is recommended, with transit subframe
and air suspension designed to carry the loads that are currently
found on the trolley.
Capacity - With the heavy duty vehicle, it should be possible to
carry up to 36 seated passengers with room for 18 to- 20 standees.
Accessibility - The current vehicles are not accessible to the
handicapped, which may be in violation of the American Disabilities
Act (ADA) , and is certainly in conflict with the direction of the
agency. Any future trolley vehicles should be lift equipped, with
two wheel-chair tie-down positions per vehicle. Those positions
may be covered with "flip-up" seats to maximize ambulatory
capacity.
Open vs Enclosed Space - As a downtown distribution system, an
enclosed vehicle is desireable, allowing riders to enjoy the
trolley in inclement weather, and avoiding excessive air movement
in the car. As a tourist excursion vehicle, as much open space as
possible is desireable, allowing for maximum visibility and
increasing the "fun" of riding. Because this trolley must serve
both purposes , it is recommended that a combination of enclosed and
open space be achieved by removable windows , or drop down pocket
windows . Decorative railing style bars should be provided to
prevent passengers from leaning too far out of the open windows .
Some models come equipped with open "standing porches" on the rear
of the vehicle, which would be an attractive feature for
passengers .
Boarding and Alighting - while open space is desireable for
visibility, it is not recommended that passengers be allowed to
board and alight from the sides of the car (ie San Francisco's
cable cars ) , except at established entry and exit doorways .
Operating on congested urban streets is not compatible with having
passengers "hanging on" and jumping on and off a moving vehicle.
23
C - �/- 33
New vs Used Trolleys - Replacing the worst of the leased vehicles
with a used trolley made sense since that is the only type of
trolley that is immediately available. For the long haul, it is
recommended that a heavier duty new vehicle be acquired.
Capital Costs - The replacement fleet is budgeted as follows:
New Trolley $140,000
Used Trolley $ 501000
Both the used and new vehicles will be purchased in 1990-91 fiscal
years, although the new vehicle may not be delivered until the 91-
92 fiscal year. Until that time, one of the leased vehicles may
be retained as a back-up only.
Funding for the capital program is not assured. A $33, 600
Discretionary Grant has been applied for through the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration. This is the only grant funding
available for this purchase. The remainder would be financed
through Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds . Taking the
full balance,or $157,000 from TDA will result in a reduction of
TDA funds which have been programmed for non-transit purposes .
TDA fund balancing will be more thoroughly discussed in the Short
Range Transit Plan.
SUMMARY
The following summarizes recommendations made in this report:
1 . A performance monitoring system for evaluating trolley service
should be developed and implemented This will allow for on-
going evaluation oftrolley service, and will form the basis
for decision making about extensions and continuation of the
current trolley.
2. Reduce winter hours slightly to 10 . 00 AM to 5.00 PM This
reduction is intended to eliminate the unproductive loops at
the beginning and end of the service day. Hours should be
expanded again during the spring and summer tourist season.
3 . Continue free fare operations to support the goals for the
system stated by the City Council Only through free fare
operations can the trolley reduce downtown congestion, reduce
parking demand and encourage tourists and residents alike to
enjoy downtown.
4 . Expand the trolley fleet to include a heavy duty transit
trollev vehicle, which will become the primary vehicle for
service. A second vehicle will eliminate the need to lease
a fleet, while providing a wheelchair accessible, heavy duty
reliable vehicle, capable of carrying summertime loads on the
system.
24
3000 T SEES
TRANSIT TROLLEY
{
Zf
PIN
l
MEW
IMF
For
.ter 1
i to
' � ��./ , �`\� ,C� �"fS. -'�� •(� II / ,+,�'.�- � � �+��� � IMS '/' ;f \�V�
4 ,
I
s 1
TIi/., '� �
=-1
SVMC 12222 WOODRUFF DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241 (213) 803-5589
if
lot 10
-'AOatFI
1 X A
l4l I..
00
Ink
tr
t SOL,
E a,
41 1
sn .7
..........
1 "M ml,
J,
iL
Ju
—:hlyjo'