Loading...
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'