HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/1990, 2 - MONTEREY STREET TROLLEY II�h��N��Iyllllllllll`Ilulll
city (� MEETING DATE:
C� � Sdn �U�S ���Sp� 4/4/90
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative ofEigv
SUBJECT: Monterey Street Trolley
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS CLERK
1. Reject the single proposal submitted for the pilot Monterey
Street Trolley program.
2 . Direct staff to pursue the development of a broader, motor-
driven downtown trolley program, to be tested on a pilot basis
as soon as equipment can be leased and agreement reached with
a vendor.
3. Consistent with the recommendation of the Mass Transportation
Advisory Committee, direct staff to incorporate the
evaluation/development of an ongoing downtown shuttle program
as a part of the preparation of the "Short Range Transit Plan
for SLO Transit, FY 1991-1996. "
BACKGROUND
As a part of the adoption of the 1989-91 Financial Plan and Budget,
the Council included a work program objective to provide a trial
shuttle service linking the Monterey Street hotel/motel area with
the downtown. On October 17, 1989, staff presented a status report
to the City Council concerning the development of the "Monterey
Street Trolley" pilot program. During that meeting, Council
directed staff to prepare a request for proposals for
trolley/shuttle services. Council also directed staff to include
a member of the Mass Transportation Advisory Committee (MTC) on the
Proposal Review Committee. The RFP was approved by Council on
January 16 and, as directed by Council, reviewed by the BIA and
Chamber of Commerce prior to distribution (no changes were made) .
During a January 17, 1990 Mass "Yansportation Committee meeting
staff requested that the Committee appoint a representative to
serve as a member of the Proposal Review Committee. The MTC
designated Dr. Walter Rice as its representative and also directed
staff to provide an opportunity for MTC review of the summary of
proposals prior to presentation to the City Council.. Both the
Proposal Review Committee and the MTC have completed their proposal.
evaluation work. The balance of this report summarizes their
findings and outlines recommendations and options for proceeding
on this Council Work Program objective.
Proposal Evaluation
Only one proposal was received by the deadline of February 23, 1990
(Attachment 1) . This proposal was prepared by a Mr. Chad Noland
and relates to a horse-drawn trolley service. The review committee
convened and reviewed this proposal on March 2 , 1990. A summary
I �U city of san Luis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Report
Page Two
of the Committee's concerns is provided as Attachment 2. The MTC.
reviewed the proposal on March 14, and after discussing various
aspects of the proposal with Mr. Noland (who was present at the
meeting) , they unanimously recommended pursuing a different course
of action relative to a downtown shuttle program. Their specific
advisory position is outlined in a correspondence from MTC
Chairman, Mr. Joe Risser (Attachment 3) : Representatives of the
MTC will be present at the April 4 Council meeting to elaborate on
their recommendations, if desired.
In summary, it is felt that the $120, 000 three-month cost is too
high relative to the possibility of achieving the initial goals of
this project (e.g. , reducing traffic and air pollution, moving
people efficiently) . If the trolley averaged 50% capacity during
a given 12-hour shift, the cost would be approximately $4.50 per
passenger.
Beyond the issue of cost, the Review Committee and the MTC are
concerned about the size of the vehicle the horses would be
required to pull and the impact this would have on the operation
and on traffic. While the aesthetic advantages of a horse-drawn
vehicle are recognized, a motor-driven vehicle is expected to serve
the needs of passengers more effectively. For these reasons, the
specific proposal before Council is not recommended.
Prior to outlining alternatives for proceeding on the Council Work
Program objective for a shuttle service, staff would like to
clarify terminology used in discussing future transit planning
efforts, since such efforts have a direct bearing on the timing for
an ongoing shuttle program.
Transit Master Planning: Two Kinds
Recently, in different forums, the concept of embarking on .a
transit master planning effort has been raised (e.g. , during the
Council study session on downtown parking; as a part of the MTC
meeting; as a part of the Area Coordinating Council work plans) .
The Civic Center improvement item on the April 4 Council Agenda
references the transit master plan issue. Because the issue of
"transit master planning" is being raised in relation to the
downtown shuttle and other recent issues, it is timely to
distinguish between two key transit planning approaches. The
approaches are: "Short Range Transit Plan" and "Long Range Transit
Master Plan. "
A Short Range Transit Plan is intended to "freeze a moment in time"
to measure a transit system's performance in terms of meeting the
existing needs of the community. The focus is on short-term
improvement in routes, equipment, facilities, and services. A Long
of-01
����� uuiIIIIIIIIPNHII city of San Luis osIspo
gig; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Report
Page Three
Range Transit Master Plan would start where the short-term plan
ended and predict where needs would be taking a system over one or
two decades. Its focus would be regional as opposed to a local
system orientation.
A short-term plan has already been incorporated in the City's 1990-
91 work plan, and is called the "Short Range Transit Plan for SLO
Transit, FY 1991-96" (Financial Plan and budget, page D-47, 1989-
91) . With the support of the Area Coordinating Council, staff is
pursuing funding for this study from Federal resources. Recently,
at the City's request, Area Coordinating Council staff included an
evaluation of the downtown Transit Transfer Center as a component
of the proposed short-term planning effort.
The location of the downtown Transit Transfer Center has an impact
on several other ongoing functions that the City is currently
involved in. Among others, the Civic Center Study, the ongoing
Parking Program, and the Circulation Element of the City's Master
Plan would be impacted by the location of a Transit Transfer
Center. Any relocation would require the agreement of the Area
Coordinating Council and County as operators of the Regional
Transit System.
There are currently no funds budgeted for a Long Term Transit
Master Plan. While staff strongly supports the need for this kind
of planning effort, work on the plan should follow completion of
the Short Range Transit Plan and the City's updated Circulation
Element. In addition, the completion of such a study should be
done in conjunction with the regional transit system. The
initiation of such a study, therefore, is at least a couple of
years away.
ALTERNATIVES
With the preceeding background, alternatives for the City Council
to consider are outlined below:
1. Approve the Horse-Drawn Trolley Proposal as submitted and
direct staff to negotiate a contract with Noland Carriages for
a summer 1990 pilot program. For reasons cited previously,
this alternative is not recommended. However, if this option
is chosen, then Council may wish to provide staff with
direction relative to these following issues:
o Route Preference (The Proposal Review Committee suggests
Route 4. )
o Wheelchair Accessibility (The Proposer needs to certify
that the proposed ramp complies with State law. )
J-3
city o� sap tins osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Report
Page Four
o Adequacy of Proposed Stops (Some identified are red zones
and therefore alternatives must be found. )
o Advertising (The proposal's budget excludes use of the
mass communication media; some augmentation may be
desirable. )
o Disposition of Vehicle if Service Discontinued (Since the
City will in essence pay for the construction of the
trolley, at a minimum, some sharing of sale proceeds may
be appropriate. )
Since time is very short prior to the trial period, if this option
is chosen, staff requests authorization to negotiate an agreement,
which can be executed by the Mayor within certain parameters
without returning to Council.
2. Council may direct staff to negotiate a contract with Noland
Carriages in an amount within the existing $90.000 pilot
program budget. Because this has been a "proposal" process
(and not a formal bid procedure) and only one proposal has
been submitted, it would not violate purchasing procedures to
attempt to negotiate a less costly pilot program. Mr. Noland
has indicated a willingness to participate in such a process,
provided that the City would consider adjustments to service
hours, days of operation, and other aspects of service which
may lower costs.
If this option is chosen, Council should do so with a
recognition that the goals of the program will be more
"tourist attraction" oriented than "public transportation"
oriented. Mr. Noland has commented that the RFP sent "mixed
signals" in this regard. To an extent, his proposal
represents a good faith effort to achieve both goals, which
is both difficult and costly.
Staff believes that there is a place in the transportation
marketplace for the kind of services currently provided by the
proposer. Tourist-oriented carriage rides or "historic tours"
(a concept currently being explored by Mr. Noland) can coexist
with a public transportation oriented trolley/shuttle service.
The MTC cites the potential attraction of such a "novelty
service" in the downtown. However, it is important to
differentiate between such service and a public transportation
oriented trolley or shuttle. Staff recommends a public
transportation emphasis. For this reason, and even if the
cost were lower, a horse-drawn program is not recommended as
a City sponsored service.
�-T
city Of San WIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Report
Page. Five
3 . Reject the proposal, purchase motor-driven. trolleys, and
initiate trolley service. This option essentially represents
the recommendation of the Proposal Review Committee_ As noted
on pages 2 and 3 of the March 6 Committee Memorandum
(Attachment 2) , the Committee recommends purchasing one or two
trolleys. The trolleys could be operated by the City's
transit operator, Laidlaw, Inc. , through a negotiated
amendment to their existing contract with the City. If the
trolley program does not work, the Committee states the
vehicles could be sold. While a portion of the cost could be
recovered, this option is not recommended because of the
significant initial capital outlay requirement (the City's
Transit Manager estimates the cost of a new trackless trolley
to be $75,000 - $160,000, depending upon features) . In
addition, a purchase would restrict the program to a specific
vehicle, untested in the City of San Luis Obispo.
4. Reject the proposal and consider the development of a broader
downtown shuttle program within the context of the Short-
Range Transit Plan and Downtown Physical Concept Plan
processes. This option reflects the recommendation of the
Mass Transportation Committee. As outlined in the memorandum
from the MTC Chairman, the MTC feels that such an approach
would be more collaborative and more coordinated with other
planning efforts (the Downtown Plan; the Short-Range Transit
Plan) . Staff agrees that the development of an on-going
downtown trolley/shuttle service should be a part of these
related planning efforts. However, data and experience
acquired through a pilot program would be beneficial in the
development of a final "product" . This leads to option number
5, which is the staff recommendation.
5. Pursue the implementation of a motor-driven downtown trolley
program, to be tested on a pilot- basis .as. soon as an amendment
to the Laidlaw contract. is negotiated and equipment can be
leased. As recommended by the MTC., an on-going "permanent"
program should be developed as a part of the. Short-Range
Transit Plan. This alternative combines elements of options
2 and 3 and is the recommended course of action for the
following reasons:
A. A pilot program will provide valuable information which
can be considered as a part of the development of a more
formal and permanent program;
B. Leasing a vehicle will require a significantly less
-_ costly initial investment and will provide the City with
more flexibility as to the ultimate vehicles which should
be acquired. It is estimated that the City can lease a
motor-driven trolley at a cost between $2,000 and $3, 000
��ih����►►Iulllllllflli ���`I city of San tins OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA DEPORT
Agenda Report
Page Six
monthly. Based on preliminary estimates of lease and
operating costs, staff believes that a pilot program can be
operated for four to five months at a cost between $30,000 and
$50, 000.
C. Operating the pilot program through an amendment to the
existing transit operator contract will be faster and
probably less costly than bidding the service (this would
be consistent with purchasing procedures since the
•contract was competitively bid in 1982) .
With respect to the current RFP process, staff contacted
several agencies receiving the proposal to determine why
they did not respond.. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. , Mayflower
Contract Services, and Santa Barbara Transportation all
cited the limited 90-day trial period as a reason for not
pursuing the contract. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. , however,
has indicated an interest in operating a pilot service
through an amendment to the existing contract, if the
City provides the vehicle.
D. The idea of building community support and jointly
planning for a long-term shuttle program through the
preparation of a Short Range Transit Plan (which would
include coordination with downtown planning activities) ,
is a prudent course of action. An obstacle within the
existing process has been an expressed Tack of support
for the Monterey Street Shuttle concept by hotel/motel,
business, and downtown organizations. Working with the
MTC, staff believes that support can be generated for a
broader downtown pilot program and, eventually, a long-
term shuttle system.
E. A limited pilot program will allow the City to totally
abandon the trolley idea if it. proves undesirable,
without further investment.
In essence, staff believes that Option 4 represents the beginnings
of a collaborative effort to develop transportation alternatives
in the downtown area. Staff recommends that the proposed pilot
program, if supported by Council, be implemented in as simple and
flexible a manner as possible. Initially, it is suggested that the
established route be primarily in the downtown area only, with
expanded route alternatives to be considered at a later time (e.g.
between the downtown and/or the hotel/motel district and other
shopping areas) . Staff envisions the pilot program being
sufficiently flexible to make changes to schedule or route
periodically during the trial period, if necessary.
city of San tuts OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Report
� Page Seven
With the adoption of the staff recommendation, staff would make
every effort to have a pilot program in place by August 1, 1990.
If, for example, the trial period spans five months, this would
allow for an evaluation of the service during the peak tourist
season, the "back-to-school" season, and the holiday season. This
would result in valuable information for inclusion in the Short
Range Transit Plan effort, which should be underway prior to the
end of the calendar year.
However, it must be pointed out that the limited number of motor-
driven trolleys available for lease are in high demand during the
summer months. The City's Transit Manager is currently
investigating availability and cost. It may not be possible to
initiate a pilot program until the fall. Staff will return to the
City Council with a specific pilot program recommendation as soon
as further information is available, if the recommendation is
adopted.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Pilot Trolley Service
$90, 000 in General Fund monies is appropriated for the Monterey
Street Trolley program in the 1989-91 Financial Plan and Budget
(page D-47) . The available balance is $89,600. It is recommended
that these funds be retained to support the proposed pilot program
and, if appropriate, an ongoing program approved as a part of the
Short Range Transit Plan. As mentioned previously, the preliminary
estimate for a five month trial is $30, 000 to $50, 000. Most of the
cost is related to the estimated operating cost, as opposed to the
vehicle lease. The City's Transit Manager is further investigating
cost and vehicle availability and staff may have more to report at
the April 4, 1990 Council meeting.
Short Range Transit Plan
As mentioned previously, staff is pursuing through the Area
Coordinating Council $8,000 in Federal funds to support the Short
Range Transit Plan. The City's success in obtaining of the Federal
grant funds will be known by May 30. If the grant is not approved,
staff recommends funding the entire study from the existing trolley
appropriation. Even if the grant is approved, including the
component to study the relocation of the Transit Transfer Center,
the City would be expected to come up with a minimum 20% match (the
study is expected to run from $10, 000 to $13 , 000) . It is
recommended that the portion of the match needed to support the
shuttle program be provided from the existing shuttle
appropriation.
a-r
P°N°'�IBIII city of san tuts osispo
Slums COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Report
Page Eight
CONCURRENCES
In addition to the Proposal Review Committee and Mass
Transportation Advisory Committee positions, the staff
recommendation has been reviewed by the Public Works and Community
Development Departments. These departments concur with the staff
recommendation. Comments by the Police and Fire Departments
regarding a horse-drawn trolley were provided to Council as a part
of a previous staff report and are available upon request.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Noland Proposal
2. Proposal Review Committee Comments
3. MTC Memo/Advisory Position
KH\trolley
HORSE-DRAWN TROLLEY PROPOSAL
IN RESPONSE TO THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO'S
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR
DOWNTOWN-MOTEL DISTRICT SHUTTLE SERVICE
SUBMITTED BY
NOLAND'S CARRIAGE
FEBRUARY 23, 1990
ATTACHMENT
HORSE-DRAWN TROLLEY PROPOSAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 . DESCRIPTION OF PROVIDER PAGE 1
2. SUMMARY OF WORK PLAN PAGE 1
3. ROUTES PAGE 2,3
4. STOPS PAGE 3
5. COST PAGE 3
6. ROUTE MAPS PAGE 4,596,7 �-
7. STOP MAPS PAGE 8,9
8. VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS PAGE 10
9. PASSENGER FARES PAGE 10
10. LICENSING PAGE 10
11 . INSURANCE PAGE 10
12. ADVERTISING PAGE 10
13. EVALUATION OF DATA PAGE 10
14. PHOTOGRAPHS & SKETCHES PAGE 11 , 12
}
HORSE-DRAWN TROLLEY PROPOSAL Page 1
I . Description of Provider -
Noland's Carriage
Chao Noland, owner / manager
5875 Edna road
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Chad and Jaymie Noland, the owners of NOLAND'S HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE,
have operated the carriage business Thursday through Sunday evenings in
downtown San Luis Obispo since September of 1988, without accidents or
compiai-nts. We now have two carriages operating all over the city
concentrating on the downtown area. The proposed shuttle is planned to
operate precisely where the carriages operate now. Prior to living in San
Luis Obispo the Nolands had a similar business 'in Fort Collins, Colorado,
again without any accidents. In Colorado, the. Noiands also owned a cattle
business where they managed a two thousand head cattle feedlot with an
annual budget of $500,000.00 dollars. Chad has owned and driven horse-
drawn vehicles for twenty five years. Jaymie is a California licensed
Veterinarian. The Nolands own a home and with their three school age
children plan to remain in San Luis Obispo.
References Phone
I . BILLY LARGENT S.L.O., CAL. 544-9663
2. JAMES BORLAND S.L.O., CAL. 544-6418
3. BILLY PATTERSON FT. COLLINS, COLO. 303-226-5379
2. Summary of Work Plan -
The trolley would be kept at a private location downtown. The horses
would be kept at 5875 Edna Rd. where all care would be provided including
feeding, shoeing, grooming, etc. Two. draft horses would pull the trolley
per shift. They would be transported to town for each shift. Any manure
dropped by the horses would be caught by a "diaper" and regularly emptied
in an appropriate manner.
.' The service would be provided according_ to the final agreement in a timely
manner realizing the importance of the schedule for the user.
r ,
HORSE-DRAWN TROLLEY PROPOSAL page 2
3. Routes -
Comments- The city will need to arrange its priorities.
1 . Round trip time vs.
2. Traffic flow vs.
3. Tourist visibility vs.
4. Stop locations vs.
5. Businesses exposed
Option s 1 . Sample route (suggested by R.F.P.), (see page 4 this report)
Beginning at the corner of Grand and Monterey, S.W. on Monterey to Santa
Rosa, S.E. to Hiquera, S.W. to Nipomo, N.W. to Monterey, N.E. to Broad, N.W.
to Palm, N.E. to Chorro, S.E. to Monterey, N.E. to start. Round trip time,
including six stops, 45 min.
Comments, this route would work fine for the horses if the city could live
with the round trip time. If the city decides that Monterey will be to
congested then I would suggest,
Option s2. (see page S)
From Grand Ave., S.W. on Monterey to Pepper, S.E. to Higuera, S.W. to
Nipomo, N.W. to Monterey, N.E. to Broad, N.W. to Palm, N.E. to Chorro, S.E. to
Monterey, N.E. to start. Round trip time, including six stops, 45 minutes.
If the city decides these round trip times are too long, there are these
choices,
1 . Shorten the route
2. Have fewer stops
3. Have two trolleys
I would suggest 1 and or 2. 3 would be cost prohibitive during the trial
period. That brings us to option 1�3
Option s3 (see page 6)
From Grand Ave., S.W. on Monterey to the Mission, return N.E. on Monterey
to start. Including three stops, round trip time 30 minutes ( 18 blocks. X
1 .5). Again if the city wanted to keep it off Monterey as much as possible
then we could utilize option a4.
(continued)
.,� .42—
HORSE-DRAWN TROLLEY PROPOSAL page 3
Routes continued
Option *4 (see page-r7) From Grand Ave., S.W. on Monterey to Pepper, S.E.
to Higuera, S.W. to Morro, N.W. to Monterey, S.W. to Chorro, stop at the
mission then, S.E. to Marsh, N.E. to California, N.W. to Hiquera, N.E. to
Grove, N.W. to Monterey, N.E. to start. Round trip time would be 36 minutes
(24 blocks. X 1 .5).
Additional comments;
1 . Of course any combination of these routes would work.
2. The horse-drawn trolley could travel approximately 1 block per 1 .5
minutes including loading and unloading. stops.
3. 1 would suggest another possible turn around might be at the corner of
Garfield and Monterey
4. If there was concern of a parking problem at Grand then the
Veterans hall might be utilized as a stop.
5. One solution in the long term would be to add a second trolley.
Remember the very thing that is the disadvantage of the horse-drawn
trolley is its strength as well. I believe the people will wait longer for it
because of the novelty. This isn't supposed to be a commuter bus!
6. Estimated daily ridership capacity based on 30 minute route would be
600 passengers.
4. Stops - (see pages 8,9) We would suggest stops at these locations;
1 . Monterey and Garfield utilize red curb
2. Monterey and Grand utilize two parking spaces
3. Monterey and Grove utilize red curb
4. Higuera and Osos utilize taxi zone
5. Hiquera and Nipomo utilize yellow
6. Monterey and Chorro utilize yellow curb and loading zone
Comments; it is difficult.for me to pick stop locations without consulting
city experts but based on my research these would be effective stops.
5. Cost - The horse-drawn trolley would be priced on a package basis, a
cost per mile would not work for me. Please keep in mind this three month
trial is the most expensive scenario possible because of set up costs.
Assuming; 1 . Twelve hours per day 4. An average of 1 .5 minutes
2. 7 days / week per Block traveled.
3. 93 days (6- 15-90 to 9- 15-90) 5. One trol ley
Price $ 120,000.00
\-\ I«_
` \IN (�
�`IN :� page 4
IN
IN
Al
O a.
d
O
o °
O
YY , O •�
O ••
'O
O
-
00 ° __.
• j , i
, _ S
(-lam• r_
City Of NOLAND'S HORSE-DRAWN
San Luis OBI SPO TROLLEY ROUTE PROPOSAL
Department of Community Oe:etopmenf.990 Psim Street OPTION * 1
Post Of Cs Bos 321,San Luis Obispo.CA 9340E(&)5)541.1000 _/—�
•--� . page 5
I
0 �
O � -
0 -
D
O .
O
o °
O
J
l
/ •O
0
O
O O
II
� nomrol
. �
i city �t' NOLAND'S HORSE-DRAWN
j San WI S OBISPO'
TROLLEY ROUTE PROPOSAL
oeoulm.nl O1 COMmun ty Do"Io .nt.M Palm Sort OPTION *2 v?•/s
POat 0111CO BO:321.San LUI$ODIfpO.CA 93406(60S)541.1000
page 6
cr
C I •�•
` O
. O
Q
o O
o °
0
I �00
o • i( �
e' O
A O�
0
O o
-
• o
s
�,s �� crty o�
nn. 1
ar., � �w NOLAND'S HORSE-DRAWN
san lUIS OBIspo TROLLEY ROUTE PROPOSAL
0"anmant Of 00411111WIlty 00:4ii«n.nt.eso P.Im SIAaaI
PoLUIS OPTION 3 -110
Post Office Boa 311,San Ia OWSOO.CA 8(8pS)541-IOM -
/ I 5
® V.4A
♦ , ASwam
1
' �♦
clw or
I �
S ■
\ 1
4
-= San Luis OBISPO
. . sel
Post Offlee gos 3 21.San Luis Obispo,CA 9340S(W5) ..
Ao page B
w w
j(n;I< Q T- _j �� z �, w — QQ
n C � z : . =>
v =5 5ANVA ROS;
;
' k
O
,-. -- - 0505
0 14
say
°0 = ca a
Vy � C a' •+ •
ca `.`.w I �
z ••• .
= Z Z ` MoRRo • .
U
-
C7 u •
� Z Z Q o0
a
Z. OOZ .:� •
GHO�Ra
� n
it
GAKDFN
� F •
00 008
^ 1902 me BROAD
i it S i y i
O I O I aO I - h
• M�� MI a o t M I �• Lo.
T
I NuLAND'S HORSE-DRAWN TROLLEY
=I a _ 4c _ i 1 `' L,DOWNTOWN ROUTE STOP PROPOSAL
Q I' ( cam * 2I' ` 21 i
NI u")I NI
M
It I
r goo s*----
Page y
�l efl'Qfp 1rf((•
rt. Sy
.r(su*q it <
t �
t
�+ o
`
At
•O
L
• J 1 �
J v tT
Z
• J • C
Is
C
<!
<O
r � C•O
` J Sr
r..
of
. 1
X16
f
O C.
• O ,
a
L r,
t
Q
city O�
NOLAND'S HORSE-DRAWN TROLLEY
San lUIS OBISPO UPPER MONTEREY ROUTE STOP PROPOSAL
Department of Community Dewlownenl,990 Palm Street
Post Office Bos 121,Sen Luis Obispo,CA 9340e Xs)Sat-woo
HORSE-DRAWN TROLLEY PROPOSAL page 10
8. Vehicle specifications - (seepage 1 1 812 for photos)
Capacity 24 Adults
Length (with horses) 30'
Width 7'
Unloading Requirements ("turn-out") 30' - 40' curb
Speed 3-4 M.P.H.
Exterior full Height 10'
Interior Height 7'
Ground to Floor Height 24"
Weight empty x3000
Head lights, tail lights, and turn signals Yes (electric)
Wheelchair accessibility Driver assisted ramp on trolley
Hydraulic Brakes, including parking Yes
Pneumatic tires Yes
9. Passenger fares -
Proposal price based on no fares
10. Licensing - -�
Noland's carriage is currently licensed to operate in San Luis Obispo.
] I . Insurance -
Noland's Carriage currently has liability insurance with INTERSTATE FIRE
AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Chicago Illinois and the trolley service would be
added to this policy at the $5,000,000.00 limit. The City is currently
named insured on the policy.
12. Advertising -
1 . 6 - Trolley stop signs, installed $ 1200.00
2. 2 Color 4x9 brochures for placement at Hotels (5000) $500.00
3. 8.5" x 1 1 " Display cards for Hotels $500.00
4. Signage on trolley $500.00
BUDGET $2700.00
13.Evaluation Data-The trolley driver will keep accurate data including
1. Number of riders 3. Day of the week
2. Time of day
J-.01D
�1
t
1 � � If111I11=1 '!f, il;
I
' II
1 a '
e ;Il irihP_; I
\�1 fI�T
\ , I\ v�
Ci V`/11 of
Ilii: .'ll I IIS III 111111111 �ii1j 111 tl��lil; sAn luis oBispo
111II I I � �I' Jv
�— 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
6 March 1990
TO: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrator
FROM: Judith Lautner;li5ssociate Planner.
SUBJECT: Meeting of trolley review committee: March 2, 1990
Dave Romero, Walter Rice, and Dan Herron met with me last Friday
to discuss the one proposal we received: Chad Noland's horse-
drawn trolley. Richard Randise was unable to attend, but called
later with his comments. Those comments were similar to the other
members ' .
The consensus of the committee was:
1. Acknowledge that the system would be high-quality and unique.
2. However, recommend that the council reject the proposal. This
recommendation was based on several considerations:
* Cost. The $120, 000 cost breaks down to about $100 per
hour of running time, or a minimum of $2. 15 per
passenger, assuming the trolley is filled to capacity
100% of the time. Noland notes that full capacity is
about 600 passengers per day. The motels in the Monterey
Street area include a total of about 630 rooms. The
committee assumes that average ridership would be
significantly less than full capacity.
* Effect on traffic. The committee felt the trolley,
travelling at approximately 3 miles per hour, would block
traffic and add to congestion, especially on Monterey
Street.
* Route times. Because the trolley is slow, the fastest
route would take 30 minutes. The committee felt the 45-
minute intervals were unacceptable from the standpoint
of users, and the 30 minute intervals would limit
ridership significantly, except perhaps on weekends.
I
ATTACM ENT 2 ��
�. Hampian —trolley review - 3/6/90 - page 2
* Effect on horses. The weight of the vehicle, fully
loaded with 24 passengers, may be too much of a strain
on horses. The committee noted that Monterey Street (and
some of the side streets) is actually a significant hill
from the point of view of the horse. The length of
shifts would have to be limited to avoid damage to the
health of the horses. The committee pointed out that
horse-drawn carriages over a long period of time have
drawn criticism from humane societies.
* Maintenance. Noland's proposal said nothing about
maintenance of the vehicle, or what would happen if it
were out of commission. Committee members agreed that
there is little to break on this type vehicle, but there
will nevertheless undoubtedly be downtimes - for
repainting, fixing brakes, fixing seats, etc. A second
vehicle may have to be purchased.
3 . If the council still wants to try the horse-drawn system, the
contract should spell out:
* The cost per day or per hour to be paid for the service,
with a penalty for nonperformance.
* A method for monitoring the service, including the number
of trips per day and the number of riders.
* A penalty for using a vehicle other than the one proposed
(if substantially different in appearance) .
* Stop locations and their effect on parking spaces or
traffic. The proposal_ included stops in red zones, which
are illegal.
Of the routes suggested, Route 4 would be the best choice in
terms of limiting traffic congestion.
Committee members suggested offering to pay Noland $2. 15 per
rider, as his proposal says this would be the cost.
4. The committee recommended instead:
* The city should purchase the vehicle(s) . The committee
suggested that motor-driven trolleys like the ones on the
attached flyer could be purchased for approximately
$60, 000 each and could possibly be run on natural gas
(Dave Romero will check with Southern California Gas on
the feasibility of using their supplies) . The open
� . trolley is similar in design to the horse-drawn, so would
likely attract riders as easily as the horse-drawn
trolley would. The committee felt two trolleys would be
a better investment than one, as they could be used to
provide more frequent service.
�-�3
Hampian - trolley review - 3/6/90 - Page 3
* The current bus operator could run the trolley route.
It would not be difficult to amend the present contract
to include the trolley. Committee members suspect the
operator would jump at the chance.
* startup time could be postponed. Start-up would depend
on delivery time of the vehicle(s) and time for contract
negotiations. For a "downtown trolley" (see below) ,
startup would not need to be summer.
* The route could be amended to be a "downtown trolley".
A route that extends from the northerly end of downtown
to the westerly end, passing by both parking garages,
could serve a wider ridership and be more effective in
getting people out of their cars. If the service were
scheduled for every 15 minutes, it would likely be used
by a large number of downtown employees and customers.
* If the downtown system proves unworkable, the vehicles
can be sold. There is a high demand for this type
vehicle. The city would be able to recoup part of its
cost.
Attached: Specialty Vehicle Manufacturing Corporation flyer
cc: Richard Randise, Walter Rice, Dan Herron, Dave Romero,
Randy Rossi, Arnold Jonas
a2 -A"1
March 18, 1990
To: Mayor and Council Members
From: Joe Risser, Chairman
Mass Transportation Advisory committee.
Re: Monterey Street Trolley Proposal
In Fall of 1989, the Transit Manager for the City advised the MTC
of the allocation of funds and direction to staff to develop a
horse drawn shuttle service between the Monterey motels and the
downtown business area.
In the transition between Transit Mangers, the Assistant City
Administrator has handled the review of the uproposed service" in
a very positive manner, referring to the Council established Mass
Transit Advisory Committee the "proposal" and the single bid
response for review. The Committee appointed Dr. Walter Rice to
review the bid response(s) , with city staff, based upon his
significant technical expertise and long term experience with our
city's mass transportation planning and operating system.
The MTC met on March 14, 1990, and reviewed the single bid from
Mr. Chad Noland and the technical review of the bid from Dr. Rice
and city staff. In addition, Mr. Noland was present to answer
questions and provide support for his bid and the general proposal.
The Committee recommendations with regard to actions in response
to the bid have been provided elsewhere for your consideration.
We believe that it is important to confirm the committee's support
for transportation services within the downtown and with particular
attention to serving the needs of visitors to the area_ The
concept of a novelty service (e.g. a horse drawn trolley) could
serve a number of transportation needs as well as be an attraction
for our downtown business and service areas.
We are significantly concerned that the initiation of such services
be done in a collaborative manner with regard to the planning and
execution of a comprehensive downtown plan (Downtown Physical
Concept Plan) and an updated Transit Master Plan. To initiate a
horse drawn trolley system at this time is, in our judgement, at
best premature and a cause of potentially significant public
relations and safety problems; and at worst a waste of financial
and staff resources which could be subject to sharp public
criticism.
We commend the Council's foresight in anticipating and identifying
the need for downtown transportation and your ongoing support for
mass transit. Allocation. of funds for the undatina of the Transit
Master Plan, to respond the needs of the entire city community, is
a sicnificant priority which must be responded to simultaneously
C with other key elements of development such as the Downtown
Physical Concept Plan. We believe this is the most productive
ATTACHMENT 3 j���
response to expressed needs for increased city transit services.
With a new, and experienced, Transit Manager now on board and the
continued support of the city administrator's staff, the Mass
Transit Committee is ready to respond to the need to develop both
short and long range transit plans for your consideration in a
timely manner.
I believe several of the committee's members and I will be
available for any clarification regarding our findings or
recommendations that may be helpful at your next meeting.
Thank you for the continued opportunity to assist you in serving
our community.
cc: Harry Watson
Ken Hampian
Mass Transit committee
�l
March 14, 1990
�J MASS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Downtown Shuttle Proposal
1. The committee supports the concept of a downtown shuttle providing important
inter-city transit services for our residents and visitors in support of our business
community.
2. The committee recommends referral of the need for this service to the Downtown
Physical Concept Plan Ad Hoc Committee.
3. The committee recommends referral of the need for this service to the Short Range
Transit Plan development process.
4. The committee recommends that the City Council utilize the funds identified for the
proposed shuttle project, and such additional funds as necessary to initiate the
development process for the Short Range Transit Plan.
5. The committee recommends that the City Council direct staff to immediately
proceed with the development process for a Short Range Transit Plan to respond,
in part, to the need for downtown transit in cooperation with the development of the
master plan for the downtown area.
6. The committee recommends the rejection of the "Horse Drawn Trolley Proposal'
submitted by Noland Carriages based upon evaluation of the proposal on the basis
of:
a. significant operating cost-
b. impact on traffic in already congested areas
C. poor service to residents and visitors in route timing
d. public relations impact in the effect on horses
e. lack of planning for maintenance
f. limited scope of service to the downtown business and community services and
attractions
g. lack of integration with existing Mass Transit Plan and operations.
KH\shuttle5
C