HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/1997, 3 - CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A SHORT-RANGE TRANSIT PLAN (SRTP) FOR SLO TRANSIT council
j acEnaa nEpont "®"
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Michael McCluskey,Public Works Director
Prepared By: Al Cablay,Public Works Manager
Transportation Team Members
SUBJECT: City Council consideration of a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP)
for SLO Transit
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the 1997-2003 Short-Range Transit Plan
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
During the past year, an ad hoc team of Public Works staff, Cal Poly and Mass Transportation
Committee(MTC)representatives have been working on a new Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP)
for SLO Transit. Consultants were hired to evaluate transit riders' attitudes, origins and
destinations, potential route extensions to serve anticipated short-term growth, and the on-time
performance of existing bus routes. The ad hoc team focused on financial planning elements of
developing the SRTP. This task was challenging since future funding from State and Federal
sources is uncertain and financial support from Cal Poly has declined.
The plan developed by the ad hoc team is a "contingency" plan that relates the level of transit
service to potential funding levels. The plan recommends that transit service be maintained at
1997 levels--a status quo situation. However, if more funds become available,the plan establishes
priorities for expanding service. Likewise,if funding is cut, priorities are established for reducing
service.
On July 9', a draft SRTP was presented to the MTC. The MTC recommends that the City Council
adopt the Draft SRTP, subject to recommended revisions and additions. These recommended
changes are briefly evaluated in the body of this agenda report. The Community Development
Department has determined that the SRTP is "not a project", and is therefore exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).
DISCUSSION
Purpose. San Luis Obispo and other communities adopt SRTPs for two main reasons:
• To address the changing transit needs of the community while recognizing the financial
constraints to providing bus service.
• To comply with California Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Federal Transit
Administration(FTA)requirements.
Council Agenda Report- Short-Range Transit Plan
Page 2
Adopting and updating the SRTP is a prerequisite for receiving State and Federal transit funding.
The Plan will act as a guide for managing SLO Transit for the next six fiscal years.
History of Planning For Transit Service. Since 1984, the City Council has adopted an SRTP
every five to six years. The current SRTP was adopted in 1991 and describes an aggressive
program for expanding transit service to maximize ridership. Over the last six years,the City has
seen a significant increase in transit patronage with ridership topping 1,000,000 in FY 1995-1996.
During this period, service frequency was increased on two of the four routes to provide two-way
half hour service,low-polluting natural gas powered buses were purchased,and downtown trolley
service was instituted.
However, to date not all of the goals set forth in the 1991-96 SRTP have been fulfilled. In
particular, half-hour service on all routes has not been instituted and even more frequent service
suggested by the SRTP (15-minute headways) has not been considered. The primary reason for
this shortfall is the scarcity of funding.
The Changing Funding Picture. In the past,the City could aggressively pursue the expansion of
SLO Transit because the levels of State funding (TDA funds) continued to increase, new federal
sources of dollars (FTA funding) were coming on line, and contributions from Cal Poly State
University were increasing. However,that funding situation has changed.
Based on current federal regulations,federal funding available to pay for SLO Transit's operating
costs is limited and future federal funding levels are uncertain. Also, the recently ratified
agreement with Cal Poly shows that the University's funding support for SLO Transit is being
reduced from previous levels.
To partially address evolving changes in funding, in April 1997 the City Council approved an
increase in transit fares from 50 cents to 75 cents — the first increase in 16 years. However,
additional transit fare revenues will not be sufficient to expand transit service and fare increases,
and could even discourage some people from riding the bus. The extent of these potential ridership
reductions is unknown at this time.
At this point in SLO Transit's history,the City has stretched existing transit funding sources about
as far as they will go, no new funding sources are anticipated,and the future of federal funding is
uncertain. This evolving funding picture influenced the City to establish, as part of its 1997-99
Financial Plan,the goal of maintaining SLO Transit service at 1997 levels—a status quo situation.
Even maintaining the status quo may be difficult unless structural changes are made to federal law
that are currently being considered by Congress (reference Chapter 4 of the draft SRTP for more
financial planning details).
Planning for All Contingencies. Given limits to current funding and future uncertainties, the
Public Works staff was challenged to develop an SRTP that establishes a management strategy for
the next five to six years. What is presented in the attached report and summarized on page 2 of
the document is a"contingency plan" containing the following principals:
3��
Council Agenda Report- Short-Range Transit Plan
Page 3
• Consistent with the 1997-99 Financial Plan,the City will try to maintain SLO Transit service at
1997 levels.
• If additional funding becomes available, SLO Transit will be expanding following priorities
shown in Figure 8 on Page 22.
• If funding is reduced,transit fares will be increased and service will be cut following priorities
shown in Figure 10 on page 23.
• As part of the City's budget cycles, the SRTP and funding for SLO Transit will be reviewed
and adjustments to the plan and transit service levels will be made as needed.
The overall policy structure of this SRTP is unique and represents a new approach for setting transit
policies for the plan. It is significantly different from previous"growth oriented" SRTPs adopted
by the City. This draft SRTP tries to plan for both positive and negative changes to the SLO
Transit system. It is a financially constrained plan in that service changes that may occur in the
future depend on changes in the availability of funding.
Producing the Draft SRTP. This SRTP was prepared using a combination of consultant, City
staff, and other agency resources. An ad hoc team composed of Public Works transportation staff,
a representative from Cal Poly and the Chairperson of the Mass Transit Committee was formed to
guide preparation of the document.
The ad hoc team focused on the financial component of planning for future transit service. This
task was challenging because at the same time that the team was developing the SRTP:
• A new service contract was being negotiated with Laidlaw Inc. (which could have a profound
effect on operating costs);
• The details of the funding agreement with Cal Poly were being worked out(which could affect
revenues);and
• Some of the details of how future Federal legislation might affect transit funding were just
surfacing(which will significantly affect revenues).
In addition to the work done by the ad hoc team, the City hired consultants to conduct various
technical evaluations. These studies are identified in the following table.
3-3
Council Agenda Report- Short-Range Transit Plan
Page 4
Consultant5tpdies Associated With Updatingthe SRTP
Work Done Firm Cost
On-Board Survey: bus riders were surveyed to determine their satisfaction Transportation
with the system,their origins and designations,and the level of ridership at Management&Design $9,000
particular transit stops.
On-Time Performance Checks: service on all existing bus routes was Nelson-Nygaard $5,000
surveyed to determine if buses were running on schedule. (This analysis
coupled with the on-board survey results identify potentially chronic problems
with Route 3.)
Potential Route Extensions: potential development in the City's urban Nelson-Nygaard $5,000
reserve during the next six years was evaluated to determine if route
extensions or modifications are warranted. This evaluation also looked at
serving the Margarita Expansion Area and creating a new south city loop using
and extended Prado Road and interchange system between Madonna Road and
Broad Street
Route Analysis:a detailed evaluation of bus routing was conducted as part of Nelson-Nygaard $5,000
an evaluation of siting a future Multi-Modal Transportation Center on Santa
Barbara Street near the railroad.
MTC Review of the Draft SRTP. On July 9" the Mass Transportation Committee reviewed the
draft SRTP — a copy of the meeting minutes is attached as Exhibit B. The Committee voted to
support the adoption of the Draft SRTP subject to revisions and policy recommendations. The
MTC identified seven (7) recommended modifications to the plan, as well as minor editorial
changes.
Staff has modified the draft SRTP to incorporate the MTC's editorial changes. The table under the
"Concurrence" section identifies the.MTC's recommendations and staff's response to each. Staff'
will be prepared to further describe these recommendations and respond to City Council questions
at the August 19'"meeting.
CONCURRENCES
On July 17°i, City staff met with Dan Herron, Senior Transportation Planner with the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments(SLOCOG). The following summarizes the brief comments made
by Mr.Herron and the City staff's response.
3-`f
Council Agenda Report- Short-Range Transit Plan
Page 5
SLOCOG Staff Comments:
SLOCOOSTA"CONEMENrS
Comment City StaffResponse
The Draft SRTP is overly- City staff believes that the structure of the Draft SRTP allows the City to respond to
optimistic in its financial any financial forecasts. We agree that limitations on how federal dollars can be spent
assumptions. Limitations on transit service(formulas that limit its use for operating expenses)must be lifted in
on the use of federal order for the City to take full advantage of Federal FTA funding. There are
funding may make service indicationsfrom Washingtonthat Congress may indeed eliminate these limitations for
reductions more probable small transit agencies — although the City will not know for sure until Congress
than portrayed in the plan. approves new transportation legislation in Fall 1997 or Winter 1998. In response to
this concern,staff has modified the Draft SUP to clarify our funding assumptions
based on anticipated federal legislation(see page 20).
At some intersections, Staff agrees with this comment and has included a new Policy 5.6 in Section 5 of the
buses are delayed because Draft SRTP. However, in some parts of San Luis Obispo,there will be limits on
they have difficulty making what can be done within existing rights-of-way, and adjoining land uses, curb
turns.The City should look parking,and pedestrian traffic may be impacted by significant physical modifications.
at modifyingthe
intersections where this To compensate for some service delays while avoiding physical impacts to particular
happens to reduce delays. intersections,the City might consider installing traffic signal preemption devices on
buses and within signal cabinets on routes where on-time performance is a problem.
Policy 5.6 is written broadly enough to allow the City to consider both physical and
operational changes to intersections.
The Mass Transportation Committee reviewed the Plan at their regularly scheduled meeting on July
9, 1997. The Committee unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the SRTP,subject
to recommended revisions and additions. Where staff feel the recommendations were appropriate,
they have been incorporated into the Plan. Recommendations which were not included are
evaluated in Exhibit A(attached).
FISCAL IMPACT
The SRTP reiterates that SLO Transit depends on four major revenue sources:
• Transportation Development Act(TDA) grants
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants
• Cal Poly Contributions
• Fare Revenues
3-J
Council Agenda Report- Short-Range Transit Plan
Page 6
• Federal Transit Administration(FTA) grants
• Cal Poly Contributions
• Fare Revenues
The SRTP then makes six assumptions about how much money will be available over the next
six years:
• Significant new ongoing sources of money are not likely to become available.
• The City will continue spending all of its TDA grants for alternative transportation and
refrain from spending general fund revenue for SLO Transit.
• TDA grant amounts will increase by about three percent per fiscal year.
• A total of$545,200 in FTA grants will be available each fiscal year.
• Restrictions on the amount of FTA grants that can be used for operating costs will be lifted in
fiscal year 1998-99.
• Cal Poly contributions will increase at the same rate as prices on the bus operations contract.
If these assumptions hold true, the revenue available should allow continuation of existing bus
service and should pay for all anticipated capital projects. But significant variations from
projected revenue levels would require changing SLO Transit's service levels or capital
improvement plans.
If significantly more money becomes available, the plan recommends adding service according
to the following priority order:
• Split Route 3 into two separate and expanded one-hour loops
• Add two-way 30-minute service on all routes
• Add 15-minute service on routes with high patronage
• Add service to the San Luis Obispo Airport on Broad Street
• Add evening service
• Add weekend service
If significantly less money comes in from existing sources, the plan calls for raising fares by 33
percent in order to limit service reductions. Individual fare categories would increase as follows:
from to
Regular Cash Fare $0.75 $1.00
Cash Fare for Seniors and Disabled Riders $0.35 $0.50
Monthly Pass Price $24.00 $32.00
Monthly Pass Price for Seniors and Disabled Riders $7.50 $10.00
If service reductions were still required after raising fares, the plan recommends reducing service
according to the following priority order:
3-�
Council Agenda Report- Short-Range Transit Plan .
Page 7
• Reduce trolley service or find another revenue source for it
• Reduce evening service
• Reduce tandem service during peak periods
• Reduce service on routes with low ridership
• Reduce weekend service
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to adopting a resolution approving the 1997-2003 Short-Range Transit Plan are:
1. Approve the Short-Range Transit Plan with amendments. Amendments could include
additions,deletions,or modifications suggested by the Council or the Mass Transportation
Committee.
Advantages: By adopting an SRTP with amendments, Council and Mass Transportation
Committee comments and desires could be made a part of the Plan
Disadvantages: Amendments may be in conflict with one or more policies in the Plan as
presented. Also,new directions taken by the Council may not have the benefit of review by
the Mass Transportation Committee.
2. Adopt an SRTP that does not include priorities for expanding or cutting transit
service.
Advantages: Not establishing priorities as part of the SRTP allows the Council to revisit
this issue each time the funding picture changes.The Council would have full flexibility to
guide how transit service should respond to each funding change.
Disadvantages: To bring service issues to the Council each time the financial picture
changes could delay a City response, significantly increase the administrative effort to
manage the system, and expand the public debate over options and priorities. Also, the
public would not be apprised ahead of time on what appropriate transit service priorities
should be.
3. Adopt an SRTP that only includes priorities for expanding SLO Transit Service.
Advantage: This strategy would follow the tradition of previous SRTPs adopted by San
Luis Obispo. As a statement of public policy,it would be more supportive of Circulation
Element goals and San Luis Obispo's long-standing commitment to transit service.
Disadvantages: As it currently stands, financial resources are not available to allow for
growth of SLO Transit service. To implement such a plan would require the City Council
to: (1)commit to using existing funding resources not previously used for transit service,or
(2) create new funding sources earmarked for supporting SLO Transit's operating costs.
Also, if funding is reduced below current levels, the SRTP would not provide any policy
direction for handling service cuts.
�'7
Council Agenda Report- Short-Range Transit Plan
Page 8
Attachments
Exhibit A: MTC Recommendations& Staff Response
Exhibit B: City Council Resolution adopting the 1997-2003 Short-Range Transit Plan
Exhibit C: MTC Meeting Minutes(July 9, 1997)
Exhibit D: Short-Range Transit Plan
coun6IagendmW rI/wpccaUwdmWrt
3-8
° m
CCI cis
o o m 15 o R
'OO •� « .. L 04
� a+ a+ C U '.' . t0 " L 0 0
34-x. o �
o �. a N c 3 0 oq v
u d m y L C V �..i y
o N
CA cc t O cc o Q N °
b u 3 O d a
to a) cc
> > e r c c°00 _° c
b uj be_ ow10 0 d asa 75 e 'y
W T.+ y •s ` v Q N fd C 9
a, ow «' S cn y � 3 o A ° r. 0
« 0 u v c o V a y r as
a"d"s 3 N t y t �LO. V o0 � 0Va d d
.+ O -S w � c c c d .: 4. = u o
t3 • c m CJ . u F
3 m o aV LY!
W maws. � .' u a•� .4 � � � � ..
� .�
Z
O Ma N .E n. o' cc
v° a so uUC C U
C 9a)
N W
> va w 3s: a� a' e ` �`£ o "= °2 e
p O N y a°n c0 OU .03 Q) t0
NE 5d s ey _ d T __ m a
u d N 9 L
d « s FMO
N .tc « c u c ? o C c 0 _ 3 E
E o 0 4 o N a O cc 0 m A
m u a O p,' _X 3 N t u a N
o ° 3 �' E C a c N A o O H
¢yQ
0. 0
Cl.Z: Qr c wyy 'v n
C N E •d C O 9 •� y
O A € h > �° d 3 3 E O y £
F y � a � '� a y � � n• U v a 3 �
W $ v ova CL'oaE B 40- £ £ �' c d d a
�+ E o
." ° s ° o_ O s 0 c n a' is v y � A
o a
V v 3 E a) .0 fi C •O u C E O n• o 'O O N
N C t0 i0 C yL .0 U A N C A
.0E o « Qo - mca`°i � � ,E, v3 ° a
�5 E r y ,cu - y a H v u -0 U E
U o U 0 = 0 N O N ° C C c0 O 3t F C
c o u Q a s O n a•- : • u o
F « m L C � 00� C C p,—
42 Y Oy L V = L�Q� £ 'C aOu+ h y C N p 3 d
in v Q 9 CW= cc O N N
'O >> O t. 4. C a) •N au+ ••' N N « C �' d C u E
N C 7 d U C •Yr. R.Q _m C .� V C ° — a) 00.2 'u O
F v C w Q :2 a m c £ t C t rd a sF a` o v 22'
G L r°il C 2
Q L.y S « C O 3 C C B N O - c0 'O
U -0 cd
to E
Qt c u L u d a y T c� E E
on
C o E y y c Q Z u A u
orn d
p ' u .0 y 7 t R O y .O
l0a C a 0 -0 N 'N C N N C H cO`a .``. � cnAE tc -oo3 °uoc° =
3C 0 ° U 3 M u as ° o ��•--
u O �°.. 4. G
a c N E oq¢ d ° ° d
7 0 '« m 0 t > o m 'O m x y u u p
cn10 oa ° Q F- 1O10 o. 0 mssQF
�-9
1>1
c $ Leo `do °n E m v o
d . E c C>'
__ m E s C s L �' c
4
C O y
y
'Co 3 s c a v 3 d Q 3 c.y
a .2:' c
a s O o p aci 4 o s o y e r v °o ° 0 g a U
CC
ra A y p p aai m °' a u y pp U C L 7
= y oa d =.' O
0 e c c e m E c 0 ° 3 m
m n ti E ° o a 4. d o .o ° .� g
V
d v y r s r. CLO
0a�
`° dayi
o `.�' Fa- " e 3 W h
o �? w .St .FeU c E .5 ca o e � D: c c me o .
V�Ch1'i L°° —_3 ••+ c ' Em ocEo` 9c �.w
a U c = U - am ' p0 w -SU �
ILI r- yc �a � 2 >
OUL .
QF
op y p 4 y t3 F E ' C y E y r V of
fir C " ` � � ° c 0 � � v' °' � yQ > � o W
Q C •— v v 'v c c a v °' '- _ o - y .. fl m 3 .. E 5b
14,
viA `� v m 2 ou o v v�i � � a° ILI " c ono x
A ° u 5 �° 'a.? �«. o QGv�i :3 as
- oa° 5 `Sc-v 3
O C V y p N •C 4. C 'O
O �' p I^ ` L N � y N 'b •C G
c o d E a 'p' u c 2 y
Fr ,E, E C •7 y L
on ie C y
_ ed
y y
0 C V •O `„ U y = C $ p C
m s 3 e a� t c w o F
W Eery y U Y y y0. a G 3 c3 O
V o ° `o o h-- 'v s >+c y H 3 m m ri
3 c a .. w C p ,us
y ` ° °' L d bD
aFa, a
M. M. - [U y E � � FU- M n
� iOv
au L m to
F t •� '� c:: a F °�' � Q of y' F n.t `�
T C C C L L C C y 61L
Qi u
U
ayy r�r�� ACL
G 00 O 3 y 00 y O
c d
.z; 9 c.o o
oEc L
d vl
cUs o+ o E a :? o r. dAm
0 ° d su 3 d �
PG E o o
c
cc � 0 c3 � o
a, s c as `° 3 ci `� ° yN �c
hO �'C
,3-ro
� ] - cis
� E2k %
2Jo e
� k§ kk
- k \ [/ �
� m L-000
� /
- ¢ kJ \ § 0 .
. a I ».
� ( � { § jk
W-4 s$ ) �
E ) ! a
92r
P � \ \ /
� \ k B
2 � ISI
2 \ ) \ \ {
2 25f% e
d u
2 2 %
\ � /\
2 V j \ k \ OJ
(
ƒ/ \ \ }aI . '
/ CLto
'd
\ � § &� �
kCL 0
kCA
» ■=
- 7 B
e
§ \
/ »
§ k -
. ■ � :
§
�"/
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING THE 1997-2003 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
FOR SLO TRANSIT
WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act of the State of California requires that the
City's transit system have an approved Short Range Transit Plan(SRTP); and
WHEREAS,the Plan will guide the transit system through the next six years operations and
capital programs; and
WHEREAS, an ad hoc team of Public Works staff, Cal Poly and Mass Transportation
Committee members have developed the Plan; and
WHEREAS,the plan is designed to maintain transit at 1997 levels and the plan is fiscally
constrained;
WHEREAS,the SRTP is "not a project"and is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, as follows:
Approve the 1997-2003 Short Range Transit Plan.
Upon the motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of 1997.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk y tWofrseTity Attorney
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday,July 9, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
The Mass Transportation Committee was called to order at 10:10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 9,
1997 in the Planning Conference Room of City Hall, 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Doris Highland
Kevin Rice
Randell La Vack
Jacquie Paulsen
Absent: Mike Spangler, Walter Rice and Irma Kalman
Staff: Transit Manager Harry Watson
Transportation Technician Reinie Jones
Principal Transportation Planner Terry Sanville
Also present were Dan I-Ierron, SLOCOG.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Dan Herron mentioned that SLOCOG has an informative funding worksheet that is available to
any of the committee who are interested.
Harry Watson said that he would like the bus advertising survey that was attached to the agenda
returned with committee comments. Harry stated that the drivers are also being surveyed and
their input along with the committee members will be used for the Council update. Randell
LaVack stated that he would like the committee to see the report before it goes to the Council.
The other committee members would also like to see the report.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Review and comment on SLO Transit's six year Short Range Transit Plan and recommend
Council adoption of the plan.
Doris Highland had a fe�v comments on page 2 concerning the figures and pace numbers.
3-�3
Harry Watson explained how the document was put together and how a summary -was
incorporated into the document. He said that committee members should feel free comment at
any time as he goes through the document.
Doris Highland said that on page 3, the 22 year history needs to be changed to 23 year history.
Randell LaVack said that since SLO Transit does not have a Lona Range Transit Plan the motion .
made in the last MTC meeting on the Multimodal Transportation Center should be included in
this document. The other committee members agreed.
Dan Herrron said that Figure 2 could also include the Regional Transportation Plan and the Lon;
Range Transit Plan. Randell LaVack feels that the paragraph after Figure 2 is misleading due to
the consultant assuming that the 1991 SRTP service expansions would be implemented. He feels
that SLO Transit should be considered as an alternative in the Downtown Access & Parking
Study. He would like to see the MTC have input in the Downtown Access and Parking Plan.
Jacquie Paulsen pointed out that the Circulation Element policies on page 6 are confusing with
the 5% and 8.2 % listed above. Kevin Rice would like to have a statement in this section saying;
that Cal Poly char�clino riders will britt; down on the 8.2% substantially. Randell LaVack :said
that removing the Circulation Element policies could be one way to reduce the confusion because
all of the other Circulation Element policies pertaining to transit are not listed throughout the
document.
Dan Herron would like to see Cal Poly re-look at the subsidies for transit. Jacquie Paulsen
replied that a contract has already been signed and that if he has comments he should direct them
to Frank Lebens or Vicki Stover. Kevin Rice thinks that the students should charge themselves a
dollar per quarter so that transit could be free. Jacquie stated that this %\as an idea at one point
but Cal Poly administration did not think it was the appropriate time. She also said that there is a
new committee on campus that looks at all new student fees. Harry Watson pointed out that in
the new contract with Cal Poly, Cal Poly is subsidizing specific routes instead of paying per ride.
He said that the Council would not likely cut some of the heaviest subsidized routes. Randy
LaVack did not think that the SRTP was addressing the effect that Cal Poly charging fares will
have on ridership.. The committee agreed that the SRTP should address, as a discussion item,
what happens if riderhship decreases and what solutions could be implemented.
The MTC will continue Cal Poly funding ideas at a future MTC meeting.
Dan Herron pointed out that the goals on page 7 should identif}, standards to define the terms
high quality, safe and reliable. He would also like to see policy 2.1 modified to say that the
savings from the consolidation efforts with Regional Transit could be used for service expansion.
Randy La Vack replied that most of those items are addressed on page 11.
The committee discussed the trolley and how it fits into the transit system. Randell LaVack felt
that it benefits the City and downtown merchants but not SLO Transit. Kevin Rice pointed Out
that it serves the City and that the City should pay for some of it and the businesses should pay
3-1�
for some of it but the riders should not be charged. Jacquie Paulsen said that if Cal Poly has to
pay for its services then so should the downtown. The committee decided on eliminating "Tile
City will" from policy 3.9 and adding another policy that says, "Pursue alternative funding
sources for the trolley".
Dan Herron said that at the last Unmet Needs Hearing a number of people have wanted service
returned to Chorro Street. He would like to see that addressed in this SRTP.
The Committee then discussed the "Where the Money Comes From" section. The Committee
agreed that this section should include, "'When the City supports new revenue sources, SLO
Transit expansion should be considered as a top or high priority".
Kevin Rice would like to see the appendix pages numbered.
Randell LaVack suggested changing the "will" in the first bullet on page 14 to "are not likely".
He also suggested eliminating "To limit service reductions" in policy 4.4. The committee agreed
to both items.
Doris Highland motioned to approve adoption of the Short Range Transit Plan with
recommended changes and Jacquie Paulsen seconded. The committee unanimously approved.
ADJOURNMENT: .
There being no further business to cone before the Committee, the muting was adjourned at
12:05 a.m. to the next meeting of the Mass Transportation Committee. time and date to be
announced.
3-t6'
&A
Preface
This Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) describes how the City of San Luis Obispo, California
will maintain, manage and improve SLO Transit during the six-year period from 1997 to 2003.
This plan was prepared by an ad hoc team of transportation professionals and advisors, including
the following people:
Harry Watson,Transit Manager
Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
Jacquie Paulsen, Cal Poly Commuter Services Coordinator
Randy LaVack, Mass Transportation Committee Chairperson
Reinie Jones, Transportation Technician
David Elliott, Administrative Analyst
Al Cablay, Public Works Manager
For more information about this document,contact the San Luis Obispo Public Works Depart-
ment at 955 Mono Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401,telephone (805) 781-7210 or FAX (805)
781-7198.
1
Terms Often Used in This Document
• SLO Transit is the City's bus system and the subject of this Short Range Transit Plan
(SRTP).
• The Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) has seven members and makes recommen-
dations to the City Council concerning the operation of SLO Transit, including changes in
schedules, fares,routes, marketing, and capital projects.
• The Transportation Team is a group of Public Works Department employees who work
together to manage SLO Transit.
• The Transit Manager is the Transportation Team member who oversees operation of SLO
Transit.
• The Transit Contractor is a private company hired by the City to operate and maintain SLO
Transit buses.
• The Regional Transit System is managed by a board of directors known as the San Luis
Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) and is formally called Central Coast Area
Transit(CCAT).
(For more information about the roles and responsibilities of individuals and agencies involved
in managing SLO Transit, see Section 8 of this SRTP.)
2
3-�r
Summary
This section briefly outlines the contents of this Short Range Transit Plan(SRTP) and describes
how the City of San Luis Obispo intends to manage SLO Transit during the six-year period from
1997 to 2003:
• The amount of money the City will receive from the State and Federal government for SLO
Transit is uncertain. Given this uncertainty, the City will try to maintain bus and downtown
trolley service at 1997 levels.
• The City will continue to seek additional money to improve transit service. If additional
revenue becomes available, the City will improve SLO Transit service by modifying one of
its existing bus routes to ensure that its buses stay on schedule, increasing the frequency of
buses on existing routes, and then expanding the routes to serve developing areas. Priorities
for improving transit service are presented in Figure 8 on page 22.
• However, if revenue becomes more limited and raising bus fares will not cover revenue
shortfalls,the City may need to reduce or eliminate SLO Transit service including the down-
town trolley, evening and weekend bus service, and service on routes with low ridership.
Priorities for cutting service are presented in Figure 10 on page 23.
• The City, in cooperation with SLORTA, will build attractive facilities that improve access to
buses and encourage safe transfers between SLO Transit and the regional transit system.
Major capital projects include constructing a Transit Transfer Point in the downtown, build-
ing a Multi-Modal Transportation Center near the railroad, expanding the bus maintenance
building on Prado Road, and purchasing one new bus. Figure 11 describes major capital
projects proposed by this SRTP. Minor capital projects include installation of shelters and
bus turnouts at key bus stops throughout the community.
• The City will continue its marketing activities to encourage people to ride the bus. The chal-
lenge will be to maintain high ridership levels for college students while encouraging more
seniors, working residents, young children, and teenagers to ride the bus. Policies 7.2 and
7.3 identify the focus of the City's marketing efforts.
• And finally, the City will make the best use of its staff and Mass Transportation Committee to
manage SLO Transit in a cost-effective manner. Opportunities will be maintained for cam-
munity residents to participate in management and service decisions. For details about how
SLO Transit will be managed, see Section 8 of this SRTP.
3
1-18
About the Format of This Document
This SRTP discusses several transit-related topics and presents policies that either 1) establish
the City of San Luis Obispo's official position on a particular topic or 2) direct the City to take
action. These policies are the heart of this SRTP and are presented as short indented and num-
bered paragraphs. Other information presented in this plan describes current conditions and pro-
vides background about why particular policies are needed. The reader who wants to quickly
understand the essence of this document should focus on the numbered policies. A complete
listing of SRTP policies is included in the Appendix.
4
t '
1. Introduction
The Purpose of This Plan
In 1996 it cost about$1.2 million to operate SLO Transit. About 78 percent of this amount came
from the State and Federal governments, and the remaining 22 percent came from cash fares,
monthly pass sales, and direct contributions made by Cal Poly State University. In order for the
City to be eligible for State and Federal grants, it must prepare and maintain a short-range transit
plan. Also, as in the past, the transportation needs of the community change along with the abil-
ity to pay for fulfillment of those needs. Therefore,this SRTP has been prepared because:
1.1 The City should address the changing transit needs of San Luis Obispo while recognizing
financial constraints to providing bus service.
1.2 The City will comply with the California Transportation Development Act and the Fed-
eral Transit Administration by preparing and maintaining a short-range transit plan
(SRTP).
A Brief History of SLO Transit Service
The City of San Luis Obispo has operated SLO Transit since 1974. During the system's 23-year
history, the number of people riding the bus each year has increased from about 200,000 in 1974
.to 1,021,000 passengers in 1996. This is a 400 percent increase at an average annual rate of
about 17 percent. By comparison, San Luis Obispo's population grew by about 25 percent dur-
ing the same period or an average annual rate of about 1.1 percent.
Today, SLO Transit is a recognized community resource used by Cal Poly State University stu-
dents and employees, working residents, seniors, people with disabilities, and riders making con-
nections from other parts of San Luis Obispo county via the regional transit system. SLO Transit
has received national recognition as one of the 34 most efficiently run small transit systems in
America and one of four in California. Figure 1 on the next page lists several important mile-
stones in SLO Transit's history.
5
Figare 1: Milestones in SLO Transit's History
December 1972 The City Council establishes the first Mass Transportation Committee (MTC)
to determine the need for bus service in San Luis Obispo.
April 1974 SLO Transit service begins on two routes (Routes 1 and 2) using 17-passenger
microbuses. Half-hour service is provided to Cal Poly and the northern part
of San Luis Obispo while other parts of town have hourly service.
April 1975 A third route is added to serve the South Higuera Street corridor (Route 3).
Three 21-passenger buses begin service.
September 1977 Direct bus service between the downtown and Cal Poly begins (Route 5) us-
ing a 45-passenger bus.
January 1981 Route 4 is added to provide half-hour service to South Higuera Street (in
conjunction with Route 3) and to the Laguna Lake area (in conjunction with
Route 2).
November 1982 Three 31-passenger buses begin service.
March 1984 The City Council adopts the first Short Range Transit Plan(SRTP)with a key
objective to maximi .e patronage on SLO Transit.
August 1988 The City completes construction of SLO Transit's bus maintenance yard on
Prado Road.
July 1991 The"Old SLO Trolley"begins service in downtown San Luis Obispo.
January 1994 Two 44-passenger natural-gas powered buses begin service.
January 1995 Route 2 is eliminated, Route 3 is modified, and service on Routes 4 and 5 is
increased to two-way half hour service.
June 1996 For the first time, one million passengers ride SLO Transit in a single fiscal
year.
April 1997 Cash fares are raised from 50 cents to 75 cents, and pass prices are increased
by 50 percent-- the first increases in 16 years.
6
Relationship of This SRTP to the General Plan and Other Plans
The General Plan: State law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan that addresses
seven topics. Additional topics may be included. Each topic may be addressed in a separately
published document, or topics may be combined. The published sections of the General Plan are
called "elements," and one of these is entitled the Circulation Element. San Luis Obispo's Cir-
culation Element was adopted in 1994 and broadly describes how the community's current and
future transportation needs will be met. This SRT? reinforces the policies in the Circulation
Element including the following:
The City will adopt a short-range Transit Plan (S year time frame) and a long-range
Transit Plan (20 year time frame). (Reference Policy 2.8.)
The City has decided to extend the term of its SRT? from five to six years so that it corresponds
with its two-year budget cycle. This SRTP will be reviewed and updated every two years as
needed. For more details about the relationship between this plan and the budget, see Section 4.
Longer range planning for the SLO Transit (in the form of a 20-year plan) will be influenced by
expansion of the community area and the location of new development. The City is preparing
plans that will guide annexation and development of 1,500 acres near to and north of the County
Airport. As part of this planning for the "Airport Area" and the "Margarita Area", longer range
transit needs will be addressed.
The Downtown Plan: In May 1993 the City Council adopted A Conceptual Physical Plan for
the City's Center — often referred to as the "Downtown Plan." This plan encourages transit ac-
cess to the community's commercial core and recommends that a consolidated "transit center"be
located east of Santa Rosa Street between Monterey and Higuera Streets. This SRTP varies from
the recommendations of the Downtown Plan. Instead of a single consolidated site, two facilities
are planned:
• The Downtown Transfer Point: A large on-street bus stop will be built near City Hall and
the County Courthouse to serve both SLO Transit and the regional transit system, Central
Coast Area Transit(CCAT).
• A Multi-Modal Transportation Center: This development is planned for vacant land next to
the railroad along the east side of Santa Barbara Street near the Morro Street intersection.
This site will accommodate more parking for Amtrak patrons, provide space to park CCAT
buses during the day, provide an additional stop for SLO Transit, and allow bicycle and pe-
destrian connections to the nearby Jennifer Street bridge, the Amtrak passenger terminal, and
the planned bicycle path along the railroad.
For more about these two important capital projects, see Section 5 of this plan.
7
1.3 To maintain consistency between the Downtown Plan and this SRTP, the Downtown
Plan should be amended to show the new locations for transit facilities.
Other Transportation Plans: Details of how the General Plan will be implemented are addressed
in more-focused plans, with this Short Range Transit Plan being one example. Other transporta-
tion-related plans adopted or pending consideration by the San Luis Obispo City Council include
those shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: San Luis Obispo Transportation Plans
Title Status
Parking Management Plan Revised August 1995
Bicycle Transportation Plan Adopted October 1993
Pavement Management Plan Adopted February 1988
Pedestrian Transportation Plan Pending Consideration in Winter 1998
Downtown Access and Parking Plan Pending Consideration in Fall 1997
For more information about any of the plans listed above,contact the San Luis Obispo Public
Works Department at the address and telephone number shown on the cover.
s
3-�23
2. SRTP Goals
Introduction
The Circulation Element includes two important transit objectives:
• By the year 2000, transit ridership should account for seven percent of all trips made by city
residents.
• By the year 2010, transit ridership should account for eight percent of all trips made by city
residents.
A 1990 survey revealed that San Luis Obispo residents used SLO Transit for about 5.0 percent
of their weekly trips. An identical survey completed in April 1997 indicated that city residents
now use SLO Transit for about 8.2 percent of their weekly trips. This 3.2 percent increase
helped push SLO Transit annual patronage to over 1,000,000 riders for the first time in 1996
Although SLO Transit is already meeting the stated performance objective for the year 2010, ex-
pected growth and development in San Luis Obispo will increase the total number of trips taken
by all modes of transportation. To keep pace with this increase and maintain the level of transit
ridership over eight percent of all trips made by city residents,transit service must expand.
Since 1985 Cal Poly State University has been helping to pay for operating SLO Transit at a
level that has allowed university students and employees to ride the bus free. However, the
University's financial support for the system is being reduced and students may have to either
purchase quarterly or annual passes to ride the bus or pay full bus fares. University students and
employees accounted for about 72 percent of SLO Transit riders in 1996. Having to buy passes
or pay full fares could discourage them from riding the bus. The City will need to annually
monitor this situation and work with Cal Poly State University to ensure that ridership does not
significantly decline. If ridership significantly declines, the City and the University should con-
sider reinstating the free rides for Cal Poly students and employees.
While past use of SLO Transit suggests that service should continue to expand to meet commu-
nity needs, state and federal financing for the next six years is uncertain, with federal grant levels
dependent on proposed legislation. Therefore, the goals presented below acknowledge these un-
certainties yet recommend improvement of SLO Transit service. This SRTP is a financially con-
strained plan because it attempts to link the level of bus service to reasonably expected levels of
revenue needed to operate and maintain SLO Transit.
9
3���
SLO Transit Goals
Between 1997 and the year 2003,the City of San Luis Obispo will:
2.1 Maintain the 1997 level of service provided by SLO Transit.
2.2 Provide high quality, safe, reliable and attractive transit service for city residents and for
people making connections from the regional transit system.
2.3 Expand SLO Transit to meet community needs and to achieve and sustain Circulation
Element objectives if more money becomes available.
2.4 Selectively reduce SLO Transit service following priorities set by this SRT? if the level
of money available significantly declines.
SRTP Policy 2.1 is identical to the City Council goal for managing SLO Transit included in the
1997-99 Financial Plan.
vJ
10
�S
3. Providing Transit Service
Bus Service
SLO Transit provides bus service on four routes. On two of these routes, buses arrive once an
hour, while on the other two routes they arrive every half hour. The current transit routes and
bus arrival times are shown in Figure 3.
Until additional money is available, the City's main effort will be to maintain the current level of
transit service. While SLO Transit routes may be modified to allow buses to stay on schedule or
to make minor route extensions with existing resources, this SRTP proposes no substantial route
changes or service expansions. Service objectives for SLO Transit are:
3.1 The City will maintain a four-route bus system as shown in Figure 3 on the next page.
The intervals between buses—called headways—will be maintained at 1997 levels.
3.2 Within current financing limitations, the City may change existing bus routes to improve
on-time performance or serve new areas.
3.3 More significant extensions of SLO Transit routes or more frequent bus service will re-
quire supplementary financing.
3.4 The City will allow SLO Transit buses to be used for special events when:
A. The event is sponsored in whole or in part by the City;
or
B. SLO Transit buses are needed to supplement service provided by the regional
transit system.
3.5 All new buses purchased by the City should be sized to maximize passenger capacity
during peak service hours. The City will specify cost-effective and proven alterative
fuel technology for its new buses when such technology is available.
3.6 If money becomes available,the City will buy smaller buses for off-peak service to re-
duce the disruption of larger buses in neighborhoods.
I1
f%Jw
(Figure 3to be incorporated on this:page)
12 q
3.7 The Transportation Team will update and maintain an easy-to-use schedule for SLO
Transit and will distribute it throughout the community at convenient locations.
3.8 As part of its effort to annex the Airport Area and the Margarita Expansion Area, the City
will consider transit service needs for these areas along with feasible route modifications
and extensions. The City will amend this or subsequent SRTPs to incorporate a transit
service strategy for these areas.
Downtown Trolley Service
Since 1991 SLD Transit has operated a trolley in San Luis Obispo's central business district.
The trolley serves area residents and tourists and provides an additional option for getting around
the downtown shopping area. During Thursday night Fanners Markets, the trolley travels out of
the downtown to serve tourists staying on Motel Row at the east end of Monterey Street. Figure
4 identifies the standard trolley route and its weekly hours of operation.
The Circulation Element stipulates that:
The City will maintain a downtown trolley service as part of its overall transit system
(Program 2.10).
Like other service provided by SLO Transit, operating the trolley depends on financing from the
same limited sources. Therefore, consistent with Policy 2.1, this plan presents the following
policies:
3.9 Trolley service in the downtown will be maintained as shown in Figure 4 on the next
page.
3.10 The City may make minor changes to the current routing of the trolley where these im-
prove route efficiency or serve new areas without increasing operating costs.
3.11 Significant changes to trolley service (either routes or hours of operation) will require
supplementary financing.
3.12 The City will allow the trolley to be used for special community events when these are
sponsored in whole or in part by the City.
3.13 As the current trolleys reach the end of their service lives, the City will specify cost-
effective and proven alternative fuel technology for new trolleys(including the possibility
of electric battery power)when such technology is available.
13
J
(Figiue 4 to be incorporated on this page.)
14
3=�9
Providing for Bicyclists
The 1997 transportation survey showed that bicycling accounts for about 8.8 percent of all
weekly trips made by city residents. Many people who ride bicycles to school or work also ride
SLO Transit, particularly Cal Poly State University students and employees. Combining bicy-
cling and transit use provides one more option for people to conveniently travel throughout San
Luis Obispo without using private motor vehicles.
In the past, people were allowed to bring bicycles on board SLO Transit buses if there was
enough space to store them. However, with continued increases in transit patronage, buses are
often too crowded during peak commute times to safely accommodate bicycles. For the past
three years the regional transit system has accommodated bicyclists by installing racks on buses,
and these racks have been well received. A similar service is proposed below:
3.14 The City will install bicycle racks on the fronts of buses serving all SLO Transit routes
and will establish a procedure for their use.
3.15 During non-peak periods, bicycles will be allowed inside the bus when outside racks are
full and space inside is available.
3.16 The Transportation Team will monitor use of the bus-mounted bicycle racks to assess
frequency of use and any effect on operations. The team will take corrective action as
needed.
Serving People with Disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that public transit systems be accessible to
people with disabilities. Consistent with this Federal law, the City has installed wheelchair lifts
on all buses and has an ongoing project for improving access to bus stops throughout the com-
munity.
SLO Transit serves a significant number of disabled people, including about 600 riders each
month who board the bus in wheelchairs. For people with disabilities who cannot ride SLO
Transit buses, the City pays for dial-a-ride service (Runabout) provided by the regional transit
system.
As the City's population ages, the number of people with disabilities desiring transit service will
also increase. Serving people with disabilities can be challenging because they often take longer
to get on and off the bus, and this additional time can cause buses to fall behind schedule.
3.17 The City will continue its commitment to accommodate disabled people on SLO Transit
in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
15
,x40
3.18 The City will specify cost-effective designs for buses that can safely accommodate dis-
abled people and reduce service delays.
3.19 SLO Transit will accommodate all people in wheelchairs provided that they can board the
bus and secure their wheelchairs without assistance. Bus drivers will provide training to
help meet this objective.
3.20 The City will continue its ongoing project to install sidewalk ramps at street intersections
and will give priority to intersections where a bus stop is located nearby.
3.21 The City will continue to provide dial-a-ride service in the most cost-effective manner for
people with disabilities who cannot board SLO Transit buses without assistance or cannot
get to a bus stop.
Improving Service Efficiency
Public transit systems must run efficiently to provide the greatest service for each dollar spent.
This focus on efficiency is needed because demand for transit service continually increases while
the ability to pay for new service is limited. Also, every dollar spent on running an inefficient
system is a dollar that could have been used to improve existing service.
The following objectives identify potential areas where the City believes efficiency can be im-
proved—resulting in a greater service value to SLO Transit riders.
3.22 The City will structure its SLO Transit operations contracts to avoid hidden or unneces-
sary costs.
3.23 The City will consider consolidating duties performed for both SLO Transit and the re-
gional transit system when consolidation can reduce SLO Transit's operating costs while
maintaining high quality service. Duties that might be shared include maintaining buses,
dispatching, providing public information, training and evaluating drivers, and supervis-
ing operations.
3.24 The Transportation Team and Transit Contractor will work together to improve customer
satisfaction with on-time performance of SLO Transit. On-time performance will occur
when 90 percent of all departures are within 0 to 5 minutes after (never before) the
scheduled time.
A. At least once a month, on-time performance will be monitored at randomly-
selected stops on all SLO Transit routes.
16
3-3�
B. Every two years, during the second year of the Financial Plan cycle, the Trans-
portation Team will:
(1) Survey SLO Transit riders to determine overall satisfaction with the sys-
tem.
(2) Survey SLO Transit riders to determine how many people get on and off
the bus at each stop.
17
.3-3�
Ids-
LA 4
4. Financing SLO Transit
City financial transactions are recorded for a fiscal year which runs from July V to June 30'".
Financing SLO Transit—how much money is spent and where it comes from during a fiscal year
— is fairly complicated. In the interest of clarity, only the most simplified information is pre-
sented in this section.
How Money Is Spent For SLO Transit Service
Money is spent for two major purposes: operating costs and capital projects.
Operating Costs include:
• Payments to a contractor to operate and maintain the buses.
• Salaries and materials for City employees who manage the operations and maintenance con-
tract, arrange for advertising and promotion, and ensure compliance with federal, state, and
local transit regulations (direct administration).
• Salaries and materials for City employees who provide administrative, financial, legal, and
personnel services to the transit system(indirect administration).
Capital Projects include:
• Buying new buses to replace buses which are worn out.
• Refurbishing existing buses where it makes economic sense.
• Building new facilities such as the planned Multi-Modal Transportation Center.
• Installing shelters, benches, and signs at bus stops.
Where the Money Comes From
Nearly all of the money for SLO Transit comes from four sources:
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Grants. California law requires that 4.2 percent of
state sales taxes be transferred to local governments for transit uses.. Although the amount
is
333
transferred each year can fluctuate with the level of retail sales, this source has remained fairly
stable and consistent.
TDA regulations state that TDA grants can only pay for costs not covered by federal grants and
fare revenues. Another important TDA requirement is that fare revenues cover at least 20
percent of SLO Transit's operating costs.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Grants. Each year the United States Congress budgets
money for distribution to local transit systems. FTA regulations restrict the amount of a total
FTA grant that can be used for operating costs. Of the total grant amount available each year, a
transit system can typically use only about 40 percent for operating costs; the remainder may be
used for capital projects. When used for capital projects, FTA grants usually pay for 80 to 90
percent of the project cost. The remaining 10 to 20 percent must come from other sources.
In recent years, the City has been able to use up to 95 percent of its FTA grant for operating costs
by swapping its surplus capital project money for surplus operations money available from other
transit agencies. But this opportunity may disappear in fiscal year 1997-98.
Cal Poly Contributions. Since 1985 Cal Poly State University has contributed money each year
so that students and employees can ride SLO Transit for free or for reduced fares. The latest
agreement with Cal Poly, which will govern contributions through fiscal year 2000-01, calls for
distributing these contributions among SLO Transit routes based on the level of Cal Poly riders.
For example, if 90 percent of the riders on a route are Cal Poly students or employees, then 90
percent of the unsubsidized cost for that route will come from Cal Poly. For financial
management purposes, Cal Poly contributions are considered fare revenues.
Fare Revenues. This money comes from two sources: cash fares deposited in bus fareboxes
and sales of monthly passes. The total fare revenue depends on the number of fare-paying transit
riders and the fares charged. Figure 5 shows current fares and pass prices, which were increased
in January 1997 for the first time in 16 years.
Figure 5:SLO Transit Cash Fares and Pass Prices (June 199'n
Regular Cash Fare $0.75
Cash Fare for Seniors and Disabled Riders $0.35
Monthly Pass Price $24.00
Monthly Pass Price for Seniors and Disabled Riders $7.50
SLO Transit earns a small amount of interest on its bank balance. And occasionally the City
receives other one-time state and federal grants for capital projects. But most of its ongoing
revenue comes from the four sources listed above,particularly from TDA and FTA grants.
19
9_v/
The Current Financial Picture for SLO Transit
Figure 6 below summarizes SLO Transit's budget for fiscal year 1996-97. The total budgeted
sources and uses of revenue are extraordinarily high in fiscal year 1996-97 because of three large
capital projects: building the Multi-Modal Transportation Center ($2,073,000), replacing five
buses ($1,350,000), and expanding the bus maintenance yard on Prado Road ($250,000).
Figure 6: SLO Transit.Budgeted Sources and Uses of Revenue
Fiscal Year 1996-97
Sources of Revenue
TDA Grants $ 878,800 17.2%
FTA Grants 1,852,000 36.3%
Other Grants (a) 2,073,000 40.7%
Cal Poly Contributions 169,000 3.3%
Cash and Pass Fares 120,800 2.4%
Other(mostly interest) 1 2,6001 0.1%
Total Sources $590969200 100.0%
Uses of Revenue
Operating Costs $1,309,600 25.7%
Capital Projects 3,786,600 74.3%
Total Uses $59096,200 100.0%
(a) This amount includes the following one-time grants for the Multi-Modal Transportation Center:
State Transit Capital Improvement(TCI)Grant $554,000
State Proposition 116 Grant $1,016,000
Federal Surface Transportation Program(STP)Grant $500,000
How Much Money Will be Available in the Future?
This SRTP makes the following assumptions about how much money will be available for SLO
Transit from fiscal year 1997-98 to fiscal year 2002-03:
• Significant new ongoing sources of money are not likely to become available.
• The City will continue spending all of its TDA grants for alternative transportation and re-
frain from spending general fund revenue for SLO Transit.
• TDA grant amounts will increase by about three percent per fiscal year.
• A total of$545,200 in FTA grants will be available each fiscal year.
• Restrictions on the amount of FTA grants that can be used for operating costs will be lifted
in fiscal year 1998-99.
20
J-3s
• Cal Poly contributions will increase at the same rate as prices on the bus operations contract.
Based on these assumptions,Figure 7 illustrates how much money should be available from fis-
cal year 1997-98 through fiscal year 2002-03.
Figure.7; Sources of Revenue for SLD Transit
Fiscal Years 1.997-98 to 2002-03
1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
TDA Grants $ 827,000 $ 617,200 $ 635,700 $ 654,800 $ 674,400 $ 694,600
FTA Grants 1,078,300 545,200 545,200 545,200 545,200 545,200
Cal Poly Contributions 169,000 174,600 182,000 187,800 200,300 206,300
Cash and Pass Fares 159,800 159,800 159,800 159,800 159,800 159,800
Other(mostly interest) 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600
Total $2,236,700 1 $1,499,400 $1,525,300 1 $1,550,200 $1,582,300 $1,608,500
The City may not spend all the money available for SLO Transit each year. In fact, the amounts
for TDA and FTA grants are relatively high in 1997-98 because the City could not use all of the
money available from these sources in previous years. The $827,000 in TDA grants for fiscal
year 1997-98 includes $227,800 carried over from prior years. The $1,078,300 in FTA grants for
fiscal year 1997-98 includes $533,100 carried over from prior years which can be used only for
capital projects.
The amounts shown in Figure 7 should allow continuation of existing bus service and should pay
for all anticipated capital projects over the six-year plan period. Significant variations in the
money available each fiscal year will require changes to SLO Transit's service levels or will de-
lay or eliminate some capital projects.
What Will Happen if More Money Comes In?
Changing circumstances could bring in more money than anticipated. A robust state economy
might generate higher sales taxes, which would in turn increase TDA grant amounts. Federal
legislation could provide more money for transit service. Or bus ridership might grow rapidly
and increase fare revenue. If revenue increases significantly, the City should be prepared to add
SLO Transit service to meet community needs.
4.1 To make more money available for transit service, the City may consider using other
existing sources of money.
4.2 If significantly more money becomes available for transit, the City will add SLO Transit
service according to the priorities listed in Figure 8 on the next page.
21
3�3�
Figure S: Priorities for Adding SLD Transit Service
Priority Service Addition
1 Split Route 3 into two separate and expanded one-hour loops
2 Add two-way 30-minute service on all routes
3 Add 15-minute service on routes with high patronage
4 Add service to the San Luis Obispo Airport on Broad Street(a)
5 Add evening service
6 Add weekend service
(a) Splitting Route 3 (priority 1) might include adding this service.
What Will Happen if Less Money Comes In?
Several situations could reduce the money available for transit over the next six fiscal years. For
example, Congress could reduce all types of transportation grants or reduce transit grants in favor
of increasing grants for highway projects. Or Congress could decide not to lift current restric-
tions on the portion of FTA grants which can be used for operating costs. Or a larger portion of
the TDA grants might be used to pay for the regional transit system.
If any of these or other situations happen, the City must be prepared to raise bus fares, reduce
SLO Transit service, use other existing revenue sources, or delay, scale back or eliminate capital
projects. The federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which guides
the appropriation and distribution of federal transportation grants, is up for reauthorization in
October 1997. The content of this legislation will give the City a better understanding of
whether future federal funding for transit service will become more limited.
4.3 To limit service reductions, the City will raise SLO Transit fares by 33 percent as shown
in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Cash Fares and Pass Prices Needed
to Limit Reductions of SLD Transit Service
Regular Cash Fare $1.00
Cash Fare for Seniors and Disabled Riders $0.50
Monthly Pass Price $32.00
Monthly Pass Price for Seniors and Disabled Riders $10.00
4.4 After raising fares, if overall cutbacks or limitations reduce the amount of money avail-
able to pay for operating costs, the City will reduce SLO Transit service according to the
priorities listed in Figure 10 on the next page.
22
,3'3�
Figure 10: Priorities for Reducing SLO Transit Service
Priority Service Reduction
1 Reduce trolley service or find another revenue source for it
2 Reduce evening service
3 Reduce tandem service during peak periods
4 Reduce service on routes with low ridership
5 Reduce weekend service
4.5 To limit service reductions, the City may consider using other existing sources of money
for transit service.
4.6 If federal regulations continue to restrict the portion of FTA grants that can be used for
operating costs, more money will be available for capital projects. The City will try to
spend grant money on capital projects which can reduce operating costs as much as pos-
sible.
(For example,the City might buy newer buses which would be less expensive to main-
tain. Or the City might buy equipment that the Transit Contractor would otherwise have
to buy or replace. Both projects would probably help the contractor reduce prices on fu-
ture contracts.)
SRTP Amendments As Part of the Financial Plan Update
Every two years the City Council adopts a comprehensive Financial Plan, which is in effect a
two-year budget. The Financial Plan describes various programs and projects and itemizes the
amounts the Council wants to spend on them. Financing SLO Transit is an integral part of the
Financial Plan, with major budgeting decisions guided by this SRTP and the availability of state
and federal grants. Adopting a Financial Plan every two years provides an opportunity to assess
the financial status of SLO Transit, make necessary changes to service levels and capital projects,
and amend this SRTP accordingly.
Every four years the City asks for proposals and then awards a contract to a transit contractor to
operate and maintain SLO Transit buses. Contract prices directly affect about 85 percent of the
annual operating cost of SLO Transit. In April 1997 the City Council awarded a contract to
Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc. to operate and maintain SLO Transit buses from July 1, 1997 to
June 30, 2001. As this contract expires and a new contract is being negotiated, this SRTP should
be reviewed and amended accordingly.
4.7 Every two years as part of the Financial Plan preparation, the Mass Transportation Com-
mittee will review this SRTP and suggest amendments as appropriate. Amendments to
this SRTP may be considered by the City Council when it adopts a new Financial Plan or
at any time, independent of the Financial Plan cycle.
23
33
420
�V 5. Capital Improvements
Major Projects
Capital improvements are the equipment and facilities needed to keep SLO Transit running. For
example, the City needs to periodically buy new buses to replace old ones that typically travel
more than a million miles over their useful lives. Each new bus costs over a quarter of a million
dollars. Also, buildings are needed to dispatch and maintain the buses and to train drivers. And
signs, shelters,benches, and other facilities are needed where passengers board buses and transfer
between SLO Transit and other transportation systems.
Although this SRTP suggests no significant service expansions for SLO Transit, the City should
take advantage of opportunities to maintain and improve the quality of service and provide for
better connections between local and regional transit systems. With this in mind, several capital
improvements are proposed below, with most financing coming through state and federal grants
and through participation of the regional transit system and other agencies.
5.1 As financing becomes available and participation from other agencies occurs,the City
will undertake the capital improvement projects presented in Figure 11 on the next page.
5.2 The City will evaluate the potential for including a transit transfer point as part of any
plan to construct a new parking garage and mixed use project on Palm Street west of City
Hall.
v✓
24
Figure 11: 'Proposed Capital Improvement Projects
Fiscal Year
Index Project Description to be Estimated
Completed Total Cost
1 Expand the maintenance building at the Bus Yard on Prado 1997-98 $245,000
Road and install a mechanical bus washer.
2 Resurface the Bus Yard parking lot. 1998-99 $20,000
3 "• Build a downtown transfer point near City Hall and the 1998-99 $100,000
County Court House. This bus stop should be large enough
to simultaneously accommodate at least six buses and should
provide convenient access from adjoining sidewalk areas.
4** Purchase land, design, and build a Multi-Modal Transporta- 1999-00 $2,400,000
tion Center on vacant land adjoining the east side of Santa
Barbara Street near the Morro Street intersection. This fa-
cility should be owned by the City but should permanently
guarantee space that accommodates the following:
• Facilities that serve SLO Transit and CCAT patrons(bus
parking stalls,waiting areas,etc.)
• Additional parking for Amtrak patrons
• Additional parking for dial-a-ride and taxi services
• Bus parking spaces where CCAT buses can lay over
during the day
• Bicycle connections between Santa Barbara Street and
the Jennifer Street bridge
• Bicycle and pedestrian paths that extend through the site
to connect with High Street at its southern border
• Sidewalks along the Santa Barbara Street frontage
• Modifications to the Morro-Santa Barbara-Upham inter-
section to better manage all modes of transportation
• Phase II of the City's railroad bicycle path from Bush-
nell to Jennifer Streets
• The historic railroad warehouse somewhere on the site
5 Install concrete slabs, prefabricated shelters, benches, and 1999-00 $40,000
signs at 10 bus stops.
Install concrete pads,benches,and signs at 10 bus stops.
6 Purchase one new bus. 2000-01 $260,000
** The specific description of each of these two major capital projects may require additional cooperative
work between the City of San Luis Obispo, the regional transit system (SLORTA), and the SLOCOG
Board.
25
1-If/10
Bus Stops, Turnouts, and Related Facilities
Providing clearly designated and comfortable bus stops is one way of improving the attractive-
ness of SLO Transit service. Few riders will brave rain, wind, or hot sun to wait long for a bus.
While this SRTP cannot propose increasing the frequency of bus service, it can recommend
making the wait for the bus more comfortable and secure.
5.3 Bus stops and related facilities will be provided as follows:
A. When required by the Transit Manager, developers of new real estate projects will
install transit stops,turnouts and related facilities along street frontages that adjoin
their project sites or at nearby locations that provide direct transit service to their
projects.
B. In developed areas,the City will install bus stop,turnouts and facilities.
C. Facilities at bus stops will be installed as stipulated in Figure 12.
D. The design of transit shelters must be acceptable to the Transit Manager and the
Community Development Director(or the director's designee).
Figure 12: Improvements to be Installed at Designated Bus Stops
Stops with Stops with Stops with
Type of Fewer than 10 10 to 14 15 or more
Improvement Daily Boardings Daily Boardings(a) Daily Boardings(a)
Transit sign with X X X
departure time
Bench on sidewalk or in X(b)
parkway
Bench behind sidewalk on (c) X
concrete pad plus a shelter
Trash container X
Night Lighting X
Notes:
(a)To determine boardings at existing bus stops,refer to policy 3.23.B. For new stops,the Transit Manager shall
establish a method to forecast potential ridership.
(b) A concrete pad should be provided in back of the sidewalk where there is no separate landscaped parkway
that can accommodate a bench or where the sidewalk is less than 1.8 meters wide.
(c) The Transit Manager may install or require installation of transit shelters in locations with fewer than 15 daily
boardings when local climate conditions warrant protection from the weather.
26
J-31/
City and regional buses travel many of the same busy streets used by motorists, bicyclists and
pedestrians. If a bus has to stop in the street to pick up riders and is parked there for any length
of time, it can block traffic and cause congestion. A bus stopped in a bike lane can force bicy-
clists to merge into the adjoining fast moving traffic to get around the bus. Therefore, under
certain conditions, it can be a good idea to provide turnouts (also referred to as "bus bays" or
"bus pockets") to let buses stop out of the flow of traffic to pick up riders.
5.4 The City will install, or will require developers to install, bus turnouts when all of the
following criteria are met:
A. The turnout is located on an arterial street or highway/regional route as designated
by the Circulation Element
B. The arterial street segment where the turnout is to be located is expected to carry
more than 10,000 vehicles per day and the level of service (a measure of traffic
congestion)is LOS D or worse during the peak traffic period.
C. The number of people expected to board the bus during peak traffic periods is 15
or more.
D. The turnout is located close to an intersection with traffic signals where operation
of the signals will provide sufficient gaps in the traffic for the bus to safely re-
enter the flow of traffic. Preferred locations for turnouts are on the far sides of
intersections.
E. The turnout can be installed so that a stopped bus does not block a designated bike
lane.
F. Constructing the turnout will not require removing buildings or significant geo-
logical or landscaped features.
G. The design of the turnout meets the minimum standards shown in Figure 13 on
page 29. The Public Works Director (or the director's designee) may grant ex-
ceptions to these minimum standards when site conditions preclude strict compli-
ance and all design objectives specified in this section can be met.
5.5 Bus stops located along streets where parallel vehicle parking is allowed should be de-
signed to permit people to directly board the bus from adjoining sidewalks as follows:
A. The sidewalk should be extended to the edge of the parking bay (with the design
of such "bulbouts" or "nubs" meeting the minimum standards shown in Figure
13);
or
27
J,,y.�2
B. At the ends of blocks,parking should be removed to allow sufficient bus"queuing
space"along the curb.
5.6 Using the criteria in Policies 5.4 and 5.5, the Transportation Team will:
A. Periodically evaluate existing bus stops.
B. Identify bus stops where bus turnouts, queuing spaces along the curb,or bulbouts
are warranted.
C. Establish priorities for installation of warranted improvements.
5.7 The City will consider modifying the design or operation of intersections with traffic sig-
nals in order to help buses stay on schedule.
uJ
28
3�3
(Figure-13 to be incorporated on this.page.)
I
29
6. Designing For Transit Access
As described in Policies 5.2 and 5.3, developers of real estate projects must instal] facilities that
provide access to SLO Transit. But there are other ideas for improving transit service or access
to it which can be incorporated into plans for major residential subdivisions, commercial centers,
new neighborhoods, and business districts. Urban planners sometimes refer to these ideas as
"transit oriented designs"or TODs. TODs often include the following concepts:
• Increasing the density of housing projects, consolidating commercial development, and plan-
ning transit stops and routes near them so that people are encouraged to ride the bus.
• Creating safe and attractive environments within neighborhoods that encourage people to
walk, ride a bike or carpool to transit stops.
• Providing direct routes and shortcuts for people walking from their homes or employment
sites to transit stops.
• Integrating the locations of major transit stops and transfer points into the design of new
neighborhoods or commercial centers and locating commercial businesses near them to create
active pedestrian environments.
It is beyond the scope of this SRTP to present detailed standards that describe how TODs might
work in San Luis Obispo. However, the following principles should help guide the City's review
of new development projects and preparation of neighborhood plans (called specific plans).
6.1 The design of development projects and neighborhood plans should improve and encour-
age access to SLO Transit and be consistent with the following design principles:
A. Design new street systems serving neighborhoods and commercial centers to
safely and conveniently accommodate SLO Transit buses.
B. Plan transit routes and bus stops as integral features of new neighborhoods and
commercial centers.
C. When planning new neighborhoods, locate medium, medium-high, or high den-
sity housing or housing for senior or low income households close to transit
routes and bus stops.
30
D. Avoid approving development projects with many dead end streets or long blocks
that increase the distance between dwellings and the nearest bus stop. If dead end
streets or long blocks are used, provide easements to create shortcuts for people
walking to the bus.
E. Avoid creating residential areas or commercial centers that are divided by wide
arterial streets or highways. If this principle cannot be observed, make special
provisions for safe and convenient pedestrian crossings and access to bus stops.
F. Require all projects to include sidewalks or off-street trails that provide direct ac-
cess to bus stops.
G. For commercial projects, minimize the distance between a bus stop and the near-
est public entry point to a building. Provide direct walkway connections that
minimize conflicts between pedestrians and on-site vehicle circulation.
H. Locate bus stops near neighborhood commercial centers, community recreation
facilities, and mixed-use projects.
6.2 The City will initiate amendments to its ARC Guidelines, Subdivision Regulations, and
appropriate elements of its General Plan to refine and incorporate the principles described
in Policy 6.1 above.
31
244
7. Marketing SLO Transit
Who Rides SLO Transit
To market a successful transit system, the City must understand who is now riding SLO Transit
and how others might be encouraged to ride the bus. To discover who currently rides SLO Tran-
sit, a survey of passengers on SLO Transit buses was completed in April 1996. The results of
this survey are summarized in the appendices to this plan. Figure 14 shows the ages of people
riding the bus (taken from survey results) along with the age profile of the entire community as
recorded by the 1990 federal census.
Figure 14: Age Profile of SLO Transit Riders
Age Percentage Percentage
Group of SLO Transit Riders (a) of City Population (b)
under 10 negligible 8%
10-18 8% 6%
19-24 61% 34%
25-44 23% 28%
45-59 5% 9%
60 and over 3% 15%
(a) from rider survey conducted by Transportation Management and Design on April 15, 1996
(b) from federal census summary tape file 1 (STF1), 1990
Figure 15 on the next page shows the occupations of SLO Transit riders.
32
3��
Figure 15: Occupation Profile of SLO Transit Riders
Percentage
Occupation of SLO Transit Riders (a)
Full-time Employee 10%
Part-time Employee 10%
Student 72%
Retired 3%
Homemaker 1%
Unemployed 2%
Other 2%
(a) from rider survey conducted by Transportation Management and Design on April 15, 1996
Figures 14 and 15 show that SLO Transit riders come from all age and occupation groups. By
far, student riders make up the largest portion of ridership (72 percent), which explains the high
percentage of riders in the 19 to 24 age group. Employees are the second largest group of riders,
followed by retired residents. Bus patronage by seniors is relatively low(3 percent) compared to
their percentage of the community's population (15 percent). Also, few children under ten years
old ride the bus. This information presents a marketing challenge to the City: how to maintain
high student ridership while making SLO Transit more convenient to seniors, children, and em-
ployees.
What's Been Done In the Past
During fiscal year 1996-97, $12,900 or about 1.2 percent of SLO Transit's operating budget
(excluding salaries) was allocated for marketing activities. This money was used in a variety of
ways including:
• Purchasing advertisements in local newspapers,magazines and the yellow pages
• Purchasing advertisements on local radio and television stations
• Participating in special events such as WOW Week, Alternative Transportation Week, Free
Transit Day, Career Day, and the Christmas Parade
• Preparing presentations and promotional materials targeted at Cal Poly students and seniors
• Selling bus"scrip" in bulk for summer youth programs
Also, in Spring 1997 the San Luis Obispo City Council approved placement of advertising on
SLO Transit buses. In return for that advertising, the City will receive $36,000 worth of adver-
tising on KCOY TV Channel 12. By taking advantage of this arrangement, the City will be able
to free up some of its transit advertising budget for 1) other activities that improve the system or
2)expansion of advertising to attract more riders.
33
LAP
'70
What Should Be Done in the Future
A 1997 transportation survey indicated that 76 percent of San Luis Obispo residents are willing
to reduce their use of private motor vehicles. Of these residents, 54 percent would use a car less
if"convenient alternatives"were provided. SLO Transit can provide a convenient alternative for
many types of trips. However, some people do not realize how convenient SLO Transit service
can be. Therefore, one goal of marketing is to reach out to people who are not riding the bus and
promote the benefits of riding SLO Transit while maintaining existing patronage.
Another marketing goal is to manage SLO Transit's overall public image by ensuring quality
service. The public image of a transit system will often influence whether or not people ride the
bus. Key questions that must continually be asked include:
• Are the buses running on time and can people rely on the bus schedule?
• Are the bus drivers courteous?
• Are buses clean and do they provide a safe environment for people to ride in?
• Are bus stops and waiting areas attractive and well maintained, and do they provide informa-
tion that bus riders need?
• Is information about the bus system readily available?
Attention to these details can significantly affect decisions to ride the bus or to ignore it as a
transportation option.
As with other areas of SLO Transit operations, spending money on marketing must fit within the
financing limits described in Section 4. According to the American Public Transit Association,
transit systems typically earmark between 0.8 and 3.0 percent of their budgets (excluding sala-
ries) for marketing,with the majority around 2.0 percent. The City currently sets aside about 1.2
percent of SLO Transit's operating budget for marketing and promotion. However, several past
marketing activities have been low- or no-cost items. And there may be opportunities to com-
bine other marketing activities with proposed capital projects.
7.1 The percentage of SLO Transit's operating budget allocated for marketing (excluding
contributions made by KCOY TV Channel 12 or other similar arrangements) should be
maintained at 1997 levels (1.2 percent)or greater.
7.2 To improve and maintain the image of SLO Transit,the Transportation Team will:
A. Reprint the bus schedule whenever there is a service change and consider im-
proving the schedule whenever it is reprinted.
B. Update bus stop information when any change is made to a bus route.
34
C. Establish transit information centers near City Hall (possibly as part of the
Downtown Transfer Point) and the Parking offices at the Marsh Street Parking
Garage. These centers should include a large map of SLO Transit routes, sched-
ule and fare information, and suggestion/complaint boxes. Space should also be
reserved to announce route and schedule changes and to post MTC meeting agen-
das.
D. Offer free bus service to Cal Poly riders during the first week of each academic
quarter.
E. Provide free bus service during national or regional transit promotion days.
F. Focus on improving on-time performance for routes serving Cal Poly State Uni-
versity to address concerns raised riders on those routes.
G. Distribute transit information to San Luis Obispo households by one or more of
the following methods:
• As part of the materials published by the City Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment in the Telegram-Tribune newspaper.
• As part of City utility bills or garbage bills.
• As part of web pages established by the City Public Works Department and
the County Rideshare Office (www.rideshare.org). All information should be
periodically updated.
H. Prepare and distribute an information page and bus schedule in Spanish.
I. Distribute promotional packets to schools, churches, youth groups, and sports or-
ganizations. Include in these packets promotional passes ("scrip"), transit sched-
ules, and information about the benefits of SLO Transit. Whenever possible,
combine the distribution of these packets with presentations and assemblies.
7.3 As time and money allow and as opportunities arise, the Transportation Team will pursue
the activities listed in Figure 16 on the next page.
7.4 The City will continue to support the tasteful application of private advertising on its
buses (and possibly on the inside of the trolley) to generate additional revenue for SLO
Transit. Private advertising on SLO Transit shelters, buildings, or other facilities will not
be allowed.
35
7.5 The City will continue to work with the County Rideshare Office, Cal Poly State Univer-
sity, the County Air Pollution Control District, the regional transit system, and others to
mutually market SLO Transit and share the cost
7.6 The Transportation Team will periodically survey the general public to determine the
level of awareness and perceived image of SLO Transit. Results of these surveys will be
used to shape SLO Transit's marketing activities and improve its image.
v✓
36
J'S/
Figure 16: Community Outreach Activities
Target Groups Related Organizations Activities
Cal Poly students • Cal Poly ASI • WOW Week literature and activities
• Cal Poly Commuter Serv- • Distributing the Transportation Resource Guide
ices Office • Advertising in the Mustang Daily
• Advertising in the Student Directory
• Providing bus schedules on campus
Senior Citizens • American Association of • Broadcasting radio ads aimed at the 40+audi-
Retired People(AARP) ence
• Various senior housing • Advertising in Senior magazine
projects • Making presentations at the Senior Center
• City Parks and Recreation • Distributing the Transportation Resource Guide
Dept. • Selling senior passes through retailers
• County Commission on
Aging
• Retail shopping center man-
agers
New community • City Hostess • Broadcasting general purpose radio and TV ads
residents • Utility companies/agencies • Publishing ads and displays in the Yellow Pages
• Service organizations • Distributing schedules to civic and business
• Chamber of Commerce organizations
• Cal Poly Foundation,ASI, • Distributing the Transportation Resource Guide
and administration with utility bills
Elementary and • Parent-Teacher Associations • Selling transit scrip in bulk for summer youth
secondary school- • School district officials programs
children • City Parks and Recreation • Making presentations at school events, includ-
Dept. ing PTA functions
• Childcare providers
• Church youth groups
• Youth athletic organizations
High school students • SLO High School ASI • Participating in Career Day
• School district officials
Participants in • City Parks and Recreation • Selling transit scrip in bulk for summer youth
organized athletic Dept. programs
events • Various athletic clubs and
organizations
• YMCA
Downtown employees • Downtown Business Im- • Selling monthly passes to downtown employers
provement Association at a discount
(BIA)
• City and County Admini-
stration
37
3�y
8. Administering SLO Transit
Roles and Responsibilities for Administering SLO Transit
This subsection summarizes the roles and responsibilities of the individuals and groups that ad-
minister SLO Transit.
The City Council approves SLO Transit budgets, Transit Contractor contracts, major capital im-
provement projects, and SRTP updates. The Council is the final arbiter of any issue related to
SLO Transit. The City Council also appoints seven city residents to serve on the Mass Trans-
portation Committee (MTC).
The Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) makes recommendations and provides advice to
the City Council and staff about SLO Transit operations, including changes in schedules, fares,
routes, marketing activities, and capital projects. The MTC is primarily a planning and policy
board while day-today management is the responsibility of the Public Works Department Trans-
portation Team.
The Public Works Department Transportation Team is a group of employees who serve the
City Council and the MTC and who cant' out actions approved by these bodies including those
related to SLO Transit. Their work includes administering Transit Contractor contracts,planning
and supervising transit capital improvements, administering TDA and FTA grants, ensuring that
all State and Federal requirements are met, and overseeing the work of the Transit Contractor
through performance monitoring activities outlined in this SRTP. Team members include:
Public Works Director Public Works Manager
Transit Manager Administrative Analyst
Principal Transportation Planner Transportation Technician
Transit Contractor
Although the Transit Contractor is a private company, they are nonetheless an integral part of
the team and work closely with City staff members to operate and maintain SLO Transit buses.
The Transit Manager is a Transportation Team member who provides day-to-day oversight of
work performed by the Transit Contractor and who responds to information requests, sugges-
tions, and complaints.
38
J-S3
The Transportation Technician is a Transportation Team member who compiles data and pre-
pares reports needed to comply with TDA and FTA requirements. The technician also works
with the Transit Manager to measure and monitor SLO Transit's performance.
MTC Policies
8.1 The Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) shall continue to function as described
above and according to the latest edition of the City's Advisory Body Handbook. The
MTC should:
A. Review its bylaws every two years for consistency with the handbook and rec-
ommend changes needed to clarify its purpose and working relationship with the
Transportation Team.
B. Review the status of implementing this SRTP at least every two years and forward
recommendations for amending it to the City Council, preferably as part of the
Financial Plan cycle.
8.2 Whenever possible, MTC recommendations on all transit-related issues should be ob-
tained before bringing any issue to the City Council for final action.
8.3 The MTC will be kept apprised at all times of proposed or approved changes to the serv-
ice contract with the Transit Contractor.
Transportation Team Policies
8.4 Management of SLO Transit will be a collaborative effort between all members of the
Transportation Team and the MTC. The Public Works Director and the director's repre-
sentative, the Public Works Manager, will direct the team's efforts in managing SLO
Transit.
8.5 The Public Works Manager must review all proposals to study or survey any facet of SLO
Transit before they are undertaken.
8.6 The Transportation Team will remain involved in all transportation issues that affect the
City's ability to provide transit service.
8.7 The Transportation Team will thoroughly analyze proposed SRTP policy changes or any
new policies and will develop implementation strategies as needed.
8.8 The Transportation Team will review all development projects to ensure that they pro-
mote implementation of this SRTP. Bus stop facilities, turnouts, and design changes that
encourage transit access will be incorporated into the Public Works Department list of re-
quired conditions.
39
S�
8.9 The Transportation Team will analyze and the Transit Manager will review the effects of
any proposed changes to the Transit Contractor's contract before they are implemented.
8.10 At least once a year Transportation Team members will meet with the MTC to review the
status of current marketing activities, identify opportunities and constraints, and establish
priorities for future activities consistent with this SRTP.
Transit Contractor Policies
8.11 The City will continue to seek competitive proposals and hire Transit Contractors that
demonstrate that they can provide excellent service to community residents within estab-
lished financing limits.
8.12 The Transit Contractor shall strictly comply with reporting requirements stipulated in its
service contract. Any proposal to change these requirements must:
A. Fully disclose the effects of the change on the Transportation Team's ability to
fulfill state and federal reporting requirements;
and
B. Be approved by the MTC and the City Council.
8.13 The Transit Contractor and the Transit Manager will cooperatively establish, administer,
and maintain a system for tracking citizen complaints and suggestions and ensuring that
problems are promptly addressed.
Public Participation In SLD Transit Planning and Management
Every year the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) conducts public hearing
and invites the public to identify unmet transit needs in San Luis Obispo County. There is a
formal process established by State law that requires SLOCOG to determine 1) whether an idea
raised by the public is truly an unmet transit need and 2) if any unmet need is reasonable to meet.
This process provides an ongoing assessment of how SLO Transit is meeting community transit
needs.
SLOCOG's annual unmet needs hearing provides the public with an opportunity to comment on
the quality of SLO Transit service and the need for changes. In addition, the Transit Manager
responds to customer concerns about how SLO Transit is operating and takes immediate correc-
tive action.
8.14 The City will continue to respond to citizen comments received at SLOCOG's annual
unmet needs hearings. SLOCOG should continue to administer this required process un-
til it is mandated that the City do so.
40
8.15 Regardless of when a citizen requests a change in service, the Transit Manager will re-
spond to, and if deemed appropriate, implement requested changes within the fiscal year
they are received.
41
3.5�