Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2016 PC Item 2 - Short Range Transit PlanMeeting Date: Aug 24, 2016 Item Number: #2 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Adoption of the 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager Phone Number: 781-7121 e-mail: ganguiano@slocity.org VIA: Tim Bochum, Deputy Director FILE NUMBER: USE – OTHER-3400-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Make Recommendation to City Council for Adoption of 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Background Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is intended to provide a detailed business plan to guide the transit organization over the coming five years. The SRTP includes a review of rider demographics and their transit needs, a series of surveys and ridership counts conducted for all SLO Transit services, a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing services, a review of similar systems, analysis of a wide range of options, and the results of public input processes. The resulting SRTP provides operational, capital and institutional plans, including an implementation plan. The SRTP document is also used as the foundation for seeking community input into service needs, establishing priorities and funding programs. An adopted SRTP is a requirement to be eligible for certain funding sources and enables the pursuit of other local, state and federal grants. Finally, the City’s Circulation Element also requires that the City adopt a SRTP every five years. On July 13th, staff made a presentation on the SRTP to the Planning Commission. The presentation, led by consultant Gordon Shaw of LSC Inc. and Transit Manager Gamaliel Anguiano, highlighted the extensive process and analysis by which initial recommendations were initially brought for public consideration, an overview of recommended changes that have the best chance of succeeding and how public comment, including MTC and Planning Commissions, has help shaped the final service change recommendations and which are now included in this final draft of the plan. Also within the SRTP general business plan are the capital and operating financial assumptions needed to carry out the plan, paired along with anticipated ridership increase outcomes associated with these changes. If adopted, the plan will be carried out over the course of the next five years and as funding becomes available. PC2 - 1 OTHR-3400-2016 Citywide Page 2 *Route number are as used today. SRTP recommends that new route numbers are created to pair directional couplets 2.0 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS As previously presented, most recommended changes are fairly straight forward and have consensus as they merely represent a reassignment of service from one route to another to achieve better operational efficiency. By doing this, the efficiencies allow for resource to be used on other areas of the SLO Transit system to address issues such as: better bi-directional service, increased service levels along more productive segments, later evening service, greater headways on higher used routes and better integration into (or out of) neighborhoods. Revised however in this final version of the plan is the prior recommendation to move service off of Augusta St. With the input from both the City’s Mass Transit Advisory Committee and initial comments from the Planning Commission, as recorded in the July 13th meeting, the final draft of the plan upholds service along Augusta St. Fiscal Analysis This plan will increase annual operating costs by approximately 6.8 percent at full implementation. Service improvements are planned to be funded through a combination of existing funding sources, including fare revenues, Federal Transit Administration funds, Transportation Development Act funds, other state sources, as well as thru CalPoly contributions and as funding becomes available. There also is a potential for new revenues from a potential new countywide ½-cent sales tax (though these revenues are not included in this plan). If passed, this new revenue would be focused on expanding evening service. Capital costs over the plan period exceed the current forecasted 5307 funds by $5.6 Million, which will require new funding. General Plan The City’s General Plan was considered as part of the development of the SRTP. There are no known conflicts between the final draft of the SRTP and the City’s General Plan. Chapter 4 of the SRTP discussed issues of the General Plan and other guiding documents for SRTP considerations. Environmental Review The proposed update to the SRTP will not result in any new significant environmental impacts consistent with the analysis contained in the initial environmental review document. All potentially significant effects of the SRTP update were analyzed adequately as having a Negative Declaration 3.0 RECOMMENDATION Make Recommendation to City Council for Adoption of the 2016-2021 SRTP 4.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Final Draft 2016-2021 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan 2. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form 3. Final Resolution 4. ER 9-09 PC2 - 2 OTHR-3400-2016 Citywide Page 3 *Route number are as used today. SRTP recommends that new route numbers are created to pair directional couplets 5. ER 101-03 PC2 - 3 City of San Luis Obispo’s SLO Transit Prepared for the Prepared by SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSIT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 4   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 5   SLO Transit  Short Range Transit Plan  _________________________    Prepared for the    City of San Luis Obispo  919 Palm Street  San Luis Obispo, CA 93401  805‐781‐7121      Prepared by    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.  2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C  P. O. Box 5875  Tahoe City, California 96145  530 • 583‐4053    and by    AECOM, Inc.                        August 10, 2016     LSC #157040   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 6                                                                       The document was prepared using Federal Transit Administration (FTA) discretionary funds, awarded by  the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (Sustainable Communities Program) to the San  Luis Obispo Council of Governments.  The recommendations and findings presented in this document  are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the FTA or Caltrans.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 7   LSC Transportation Consultants / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan Page i  TABLE OF CONTENTS    Chapter Page     Executive Summary    Existing Demographics ............................................................................................. ES‐1    Overview of SLO Transit ........................................................................................... ES‐1    Short Range Transit Plan Elements .......................................................................... ES‐3     1 Introduction  ....................................................................................................................... 1       2 Study Setting ....................................................................................................................... 3     Existing Demographics .................................................................................................. 3     Population Forecast .................................................................................................... 12     3 Existing Transit Services .................................................................................................... 13     SLO Transit .................................................................................................................. 13     Service Standards Evaluation ...................................................................................... 38     Other Transportation Programs Serving San Luis Obispo .......................................... 53     4 Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 61     Introduction ................................................................................................................ 61     Existing Policy Statements .......................................................................................... 61     San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) .................................................. 66     5 Peer System Review .......................................................................................................... 71     Peer System Selection ................................................................................................. 71     Peer Analysis ............................................................................................................... 74     Peer Fare Review ........................................................................................................ 79     6 Service Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................... 81     Routes Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 81      Routes 1 and 3 ...................................................................................................... 81      Route 2 .................................................................................................................. 93      Routes 2 and 4 ...................................................................................................... 97      Routes 4 and 5 ...................................................................................................... 99      Routes 6A/B ........................................................................................................ 104     Other Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 113     Comparison of Alternatives and Performance Analysis ........................................... 116     ADA Impacts .............................................................................................................. 123     7 Management and Financial Alternatives ........................................................................ 125     Management Alternatives ........................................................................................ 125  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 8 LSC Transportation Consultants / AECOM, Inc.       Page ii  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan      Financial Alternatives ................................................................................................ 135     8 San Luis Obispo Short Range Transit Plan ...................................................................... 139     Service Plan ............................................................................................................... 139     Capital Plan ............................................................................................................... 145     Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 152     Financial Plan ............................................................................................................ 154     Implementation Plan ................................................................................................ 160    Appendix A: SLO Transit Onboard Survey  Appendix B: Transfer Activity   Appendix C: Public Input      TABLES    Table Page     1 San Luis Obispo Demographic Data by Block Group .......................................................... 4   2 SLO Transit Service Span and Frequency .......................................................................... 14   3 SLO Transit Roundtrip Mileage, Cycle Time, and Average Speed ..................................... 15   4 SLO Transit Average Ridership by Route and Day ............................................................ 15   5 SLO Transit Annual Ridership, Revenue Miles, Revenue Hours, and Performance  Measures ........................................................................................................................... 16   6 SLO Transit Vehicle Requirements .................................................................................... 16   7 SLO Transit Financial Indicators ........................................................................................ 17   8 SLO Transit Fare Structure ................................................................................................ 26   9 SLO Transit Annual Ridership by Pass Type ...................................................................... 27   10 SLO Transit Existing Bus Fleet ........................................................................................... 28   11 SLO Transit Bus Stop Inventory (3 pages) .................................................................... 30‐32   12 SLO Transit 10‐Year Trend in Services Levels, Ridership, Funding and Revenue Trends . 33   13 SLO Transit FY 2015‐16 Operating Expenditures and Cost Model ................................... 34   14 SLO Transit Base Case Operating Cost Forecasts .............................................................. 34   15 SLO Transit Revenues ........................................................................................................ 36   16 SLO Transit Revenue Forecasts (Existing Sources) ............................................................ 37   17 SLO Transit 10‐Year Service Levels, Ridership, Funding and Revenue ............................. 38   18 SLO Transit Service Coverage Indicators ........................................................................... 40   19 SLO Transit Patron Convenience Indicators ...................................................................... 41   20 Fiscal Condition Indicators ................................................................................................ 42   21 Passenger Comfort Indicators ........................................................................................... 43   22 Location Riders are coming from ...................................................................................... 48   23 RTA Service Span and Frequency ...................................................................................... 53   24 Ridership on RTA Routes Serving San Luis Obispo ........................................................... 55  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 9   LSC Transportation Consultants / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan Page iii   25 SLO Transit Service Standards ........................................................................................... 64   26 SLO Transit Peer Group Data and Performance Indicators .............................................. 65   27 SLO Transit Peer Candidate Operating Data ..................................................................... 72   28 SLO Transit Initial Peer Candidate Performance Indicators and Evaluation .................... 73   29 SLO Transit Peer Performance Indicators ......................................................................... 75   30 SLO Transit Peer Group Statistics ..................................................................................... 76   31 SLO Transit Fare Structure Peer Analysis .......................................................................... 80   32 SLO Transit Service Alternative Summary ........................................................................ 86   33 SLO Transit Span of Service Alternatives ........................................................................ 111   34 SLO Transit Summer Evening Service Alternative ........................................................... 112   35 SLO Transit Service Alternatives Performance Analysis ................................................. 119   36 Comparison of RTA and SLO Transit Span of Service ...................................................... 128   37 Example of Existing Schedule Coordination at Government Center Transfer Station ... 129   38 Plan Service Quantities ................................................................................................... 144   39 SLO Transit Bus Replacement Schedule .......................................................................... 146   40 Recommended SLO Transit Bus Stop Improvements ..................................................... 149   41 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan Operating Costs ................................................... 156   42 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Improvements Ridership Fare Revenue ...................... 157   43 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Capital Plan ................................................................. 158   44 SLO Transit Short Range Financial Plan .......................................................................... 159      FIGURES    Figure Page     1 Population Density .............................................................................................................. 5   2 Percentage of Zero‐Car Households ................................................................................... 6   3 Density of the Population Under the Age of 18 ................................................................. 7   4 Density of the Population Over 65 ..................................................................................... 8   5 Percentage of the Population Living Below the Poverty Level ........................................... 9   6 Median Household Income ............................................................................................... 10   7 Percentage of the Population with Disabilities ................................................................ 11   8 SLO Transit Organizational Chart ...................................................................................... 13   9 SLO Transit Route 1 ........................................................................................................... 18   10 SLO Transit Route 2 ........................................................................................................... 19   11 SLO Transit Route 3 ........................................................................................................... 20   12 SLO Transit Route 4 and 5 ................................................................................................. 21   13 SLO Transit Route 6A ........................................................................................................ 23   14 SLO Transit Route 6B ......................................................................................................... 24   15 Old SLO Trolley Map ......................................................................................................... 25   16 Rider Opinion of SLO Transit Service on a Scale from Very Poor to Excellent ................. 49   17 SLO Transit Peers — Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour .............................................. 76  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 10 LSC Transportation Consultants / AECOM, Inc.       Page iv  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan    18 SLO Transit Peers — Subsidy per Passenger Trip ............................................................. 78   19 Routes 1 and 3 Alternative 1 ............................................................................................ 84   20 Routes 1 and 3 Alternative 2 ............................................................................................ 88   21 Routes 1 and 3 Alternative 3 ............................................................................................ 90   22 Routes 1 and 3 Alternative 4 ............................................................................................ 92   23 Route 2 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................ 94   24 Route 2 Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................ 96   25 Route 2 and 4 Alternative 1  ............................................................................................. 98   26 Routes 4 and 5 Option 1 ................................................................................................. 100   27 Routes 4 and 5 Alternative 2 .......................................................................................... 103   28 Route 6A/6B Alternative 1 .............................................................................................. 105   29 Route 6A/6B Alternative 2 .............................................................................................. 106   30 Route 6A/6B Alternative 4 .............................................................................................. 109   31 Crosstown Route Alternative .......................................................................................... 114   32 SLO Transit Alternatives Impact on Annual Ridership .................................................... 117   33 SLO Transit Alternatives Impact on Annual Operating Subsidy ...................................... 118   34 SLO Transit Alternative Marginal Passenger‐Trips per Vehicle‐Hour ............................. 120   35 SLO Transit Alternatives Marginal Operating Subsidy per Psger‐Trip ............................ 122   36 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan .............................................................................. 140           ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 11   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan – Executive Summary  Page ES‐1  Executive Summary  2016 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. and AECOM, Inc.      This document presents a five‐year Short‐Range Transit Plan (SRTP) developed for SLO Transit:  the City of San Luis Obispo’s public transit program. An SRTP is intended to provide a detailed  business plan to guide the transit organization over the coming five years. It includes a review  of demographics and its transit needs, a series of surveys and ridership counts conducted for all  SLO Transit services, a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing services, a review of  similar systems, analysis of a wide range of options, and the results of public input processes.  The resulting SRTP provides operational, capital and institutional plans, including an  implementation plan. This SRTP plan has been prepared jointly with the development of a  parallel SRTP for the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) program, in order to  identify means to best coordinate the two services.     EXISTING DEMOGRAPHICS    The population of the San Luis Obispo area (including portions of census tracts extending  beyond City boundaries), per the 2009‐2013 US Census estimates is 58,684. Persons living in  households without vehicles total 231, or 1.3 percent of the total countywide population.  Youth (persons under 18 years of age) total 2,838, or 5 percent of total population. Elderly  persons age over 60 total 3,068 (15 percent). There are a total of 14,579 persons living in  households below the federal poverty level (24.8 percent of total population). Persons who  indicate they have a mobility disability total 2,259, or 4 percent of total population. Of all  population, 99 percent live within 1/4 mile of a public transit route, reflecting very good overall  coverage by the SLO Transit program. Population is forecast to increase by 2.3 percent by 2021.    OVERVIEW OF SLO TRANSIT    SLO Transit is a service provided through the City of San Luis Obispo’s Department of Public  Works, providing fixed route services throughout the city as well as the adjacent Cal Poly  campus1. Management, marketing and planning are provided by a small three‐person staff of  City employees, while service operations and vehicle maintenance is provided by a private  contractor (First Transit). The City Council is the decision making body, with input from the  Mass Transportation Committee.     SLO Transit operates a total of seven bus routes on weekdays, six routes on Saturdays, and four  routes on Sundays. Routes 1 and 3 are one‐directional loops connecting Cal Poly and downtown  with the southeast portion of the city. Route 2 connects downtown with the southern portion  of the city. Routes 4 and 5 comprise a large bi‐directional loop connecting Cal Poly and  downtown with the western and southwestern portions of the city. Routes 6A and 6B connect  1 Complementary paratransit services requires by the Americans with Disabilities Act are provided by the RTA  Runabout program.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 12 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page ES‐2 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan – Executive Summary   the Cal Poly with the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the campus, including downtown.  Service is generally provided from 6:00 AM to as late as 11:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to  6:00 PM on weekends. Lower service levels are operated during the summer. In addition, the  Old SLO Trolley service is operated from 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM on a route within downtown on  Thursdays (year‐round), on Fridays in the summer, and on Saturdays from April to October.  Limited “tripper” services are also operated to serve San Luis Obispo High School as well as to  provide necessary capacity to the Cal Poly campus.    The service requires 10 vehicles in operation at peak times (excluding tripper buses). It operates  362,000 vehicle‐miles per year over 29,700 vehicle‐hours of service.    Financials    The SLO Transit program has an annual operating cost of approximately $1,317,000 per year.   The base cash fare is $1.25, or $0.60 for senior citizens age 65‐79, passengers with disabilities,  and Medicare card holders. Free boarding is provided for Cal Poly students, faculty and staff  (through an agreement with Cal Poly), seniors age 80 and above, and children age 4 or below.  Passes are available at discounted rates. Operating revenues consist of Federal sources  (particularly the Federal Transit Administrations 5307 program), state/regional sources  (particularly Local Transportation Funds), and local fares and revenues.    Ridership    In total, approximately 1,029,000 passenger‐trips are served annually. Of these, 58 percent are  Cal Poly students, staff or faculty. Overall, 35 passengers board per vehicle‐hour of service, or  2.8 per vehicle‐mile of service. Since 2003, ridership has grown by 64 percent.     Fleet    The SLO Transit fleet consists of a total of 17 revenue vehicles, including 14 standard buses, one  double decker bus, one cutaway vehicle and a trolley replica vehicle. Vehicles use clean diesel  technology, except the cutaway and trolley vehicles that are gasoline powered.    Facilities    The SLO Transit operations and maintenance facility is located at 29 Prado Road. The primary  passenger facility is the Downtown Transit Center adjacent to City Hall. SLO Transit serves over  170 bus stops, of which 46 have shelters/benches and an additional 66 have benches.    Onboard Surveys    Fixed Route Onboard Survey    An onboard passenger survey indicated that respondents were primarily coming and going for  the purpose of either school (64 percent) or work (15 percent). Of the riders, 81 percent were  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 13   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan – Executive Summary  Page ES‐3  Cal Poly students, staff or faculty, while 4 percent were associated with Cuesta College.  Passengers were asked to rank transit service characteristics of SLO Transit on a scale of “Very  Poor” to “Excellent.” Overall, 94 percent indicated “Good” or “Excellent.” “Safety,” “Driver  Courtesy” and “Value for Fares” also received high scores. The lowest scoring category was  “On‐Time Performance,” which was ranked as “Good” or “Excellent” by 68 percent. The most  common request for service improvements were for expanded hours or days of service.    Online Survey    In addition to the onboard surveys, an online survey was conducted. Asked to rate the service,  the lowest rated service among SLO Transit riders was “Hours of Service” followed by “Service  Frequency.” The highest rated services were “Value Received for Fare” and “Safety  Performance.” The most popular way to improve SLO Transit was to extend service later on  weekdays, followed by later weekend service.     Peer Comparison    Comparing SLO Transit with eight peer systems, SLO Transit was found to have the highest  productivity, as measured in passenger‐trips per vehicle‐hour or passenger‐trips per vehicle‐ mile. SLO Transit also had a per capita trip rate more than twice the peer average. Operating  cost per vehicle revenue hour was relatively high but the cost per passenger‐trip is substantially  lower than the peer average (the third lowest of the peer group). The SLO Transit fares are  slightly lower than the peer average.    SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN ELEMENTS    Service Plan    The existing route structure will be realigned to enhance service quality in key corridors,  provide meaningful new connections, and improve service efficiency. Overall, the route  network will be reconfigured into a series of four bi‐directional routes. In addition, it is  recommended that the routes be renumbered, and A/B designations be used to differentiate  the direction of travel. The “A” routes will operate largely clockwise and the “B” routes largely  counterclockwise:     Routes 1 and 3 will be revised to create new Route 1A and Route 1B. Route 1A will be  served by one route in a clockwise direction, operated every 45 minutes using a single bus.  It will generally follow the existing Route 3, will extend service south of Tank Farm Road,  and can be modified over time to serve new development. Route 1B will serve a  counterclockwise loop generally along Broad Street, Orcutt Road and Johnson Avenue,  similar to the southern portion of existing Route 1. One bus will provide service every half‐ hour.      Route 2 will be modified to add service to the Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road  corridors. A second bus will augment the one bus currently providing service every 40  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 14 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page ES‐4 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan – Executive Summary   minutes on Route 2 to provide hourly service in both directions along this larger route. Both  buses will serve the South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue/Santa Rosa Street corridor,  providing service every 30 minutes on this busy corridor. Route 2A will operate the loop  clockwise, and Route 2B counterclockwise.     Routes 4 and 5 will be revised to provide hourly service, realigned, and renumbered Route  3A (clockwise) and 3B (counterclockwise). Service between downtown and Cal Poly will be  shifted from Grand Avenue to California Boulevard (replaced with 4A/4B enhancements)  and service on Los Osos Valley Road east of Madonna Road will be eliminated (replaced  with 2A/2B). Overall, this will reduce service frequency in the low‐ridership areas on the  western side of the system, free up two buses for use in higher ridership areas, and improve  on‐time performance.     Routes 6A and 6B will be configured into a bi‐directional loop serving Cal Poly and  downtown, and renumbered 4A (clockwise) and 4B (counterclockwise). During peak  daytime periods in the school year, two buses will be operated in each direction over the  40‐minute loop, providing service every 20 minutes in each direction. In evenings, one bus  will operate Route 4A service every 30 minutes. This strategy will improve connections  between the Foothill/Highland corridor and downtown (and connecting bus services). It will  also result in a simpler route structure that is easier for passengers to understand.     This route plan (absent the expansion of hours of service, as discussed below) will increase the  annual number of runs by 6 percent of the existing total, increase the vehicle‐hours of service  by 9 percent, but only increases vehicle‐miles of service by 0.5 percent. One additional bus will  be operated at peak. The plan focuses transit resources on areas with the greatest ridership  potential, provides new cross‐town travel options between the Madonna Road corridor and the  South Higuera corridor, improves on‐time performance by building more layover time into the  routes, increases service frequency in the key neighborhoods near the Cal Poly campus and  to/from downtown, provides service to new neighborhoods and employment opportunities,  and provides flexibility to expand services in the future to serve new developments, such as  Righetti Ranch and the Margarita Area Specific Plan.    Hours of service will be expanded during the school year, as follows:      Route 1B (existing Route 1): extend service until 8:09 PM, and operate one earlier run at  6:15 AM.     Route 2A/2B (existing Route 2): extend daytime service level until approximately 8:00 PM     Operate both Routes 3A and 3B in the evenings, and operate one additional 3A (existing  Route 4) run at 6:10 AM.    ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 15   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan – Executive Summary  Page ES‐5   Route 4A/4B (existing Route 6A/6B): 20 minute frequency until 9:00 PM, and 40 minute  frequency until approximately 11:30 PM    New weekday evening service will be operated during the summer, as follows:     Route 1A (revised existing Route 3) until approximately 9:45 PM   Route 2A (revised existing Route 2) until approximately 9:45 PM   Route 3A (revised existing Routes 4) until approximately 10:00 PM   Route 4B (revised existing Routes 6A and 6B) until 10:30 PM, at 30 minute frequency    Finally, SLO Transit will investigate serving bell times at the Laguna Middle School by operating  specific runs off of Los Osos Valley Road.    Capital Plan     The City will purchase 9 fixed route buses plus a trolley over the coming six years. It is  recommended that two of the additional buses be double deck, to expand capacity in a  cost‐efficient manner. The City will also consider 100% electric buses, as technological  improvements increase the operational and financial feasibility.     New bus stops will be constructed at a total of ten locations to implement the route  modifications.     Bus stop improvements to be pursued include 15 additional shelters, 11 additional  benches, 14 additional trash cans, 10 additional bike racks and new electronic transit  information signs at five locations. Painting or repainting red curbs is also needed at  approximately 75 stops.      The City will continue to work with the SLOCOG and RTA to develop a new downtown  transit center. As this project will require several years to implement, in the meantime the  City should enhance lighting at the existing Government Center site.     Improvements to the Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility will include  reconfiguring existing space to create a training room, adding up to two additional  maintenance bays, and expanding bus and staff parking.     Management Plan     Service standards will be revised to better match current conditions and goals.     Coordination of SLO Transit with RTA will be enhanced by (1) working towards a single  regional bus tracker website, (2) developing a single ID card for persons with disabilities, (3)  defining a consistent policy on passenger baggage, (4) coordinating routes and schedules  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 16 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page ES‐6 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan – Executive Summary   where beneficial, (5) increasing joint driver training, and (6) working towards a common bus  replacement policy.    Financial Plan    SLO Transit will implement the following fare policy changes:     Offer a discount Regional Day Pass to enhance mobility throughout the region by persons  with disabilities.     Eliminate the current 7‐Day Pass and 5‐Day Pass, which get very little use.     Consider a stored value card fare option as a replacement to the punch pass.    SLO Transit will also monitor financial conditions to assess future need for fare modifications.  No changes in base fares are included in this plan.    This plan will increase annual operating costs by 6.8 percent. Services improvements are  planned to be funded through a combination of existing funding sources, including fare  revenues, Federal Transit Administration funds, Transportation Development Act funds, other  state sources, and Cuesta College contributions. There also is a potential for new revenues from  a potential new countywide ½‐cent sales tax (though these revenues are not included in this  plan). If passed, this new revenue would be focused on expanding evening service. Capital costs  over the plan period exceed the current forecasted 5307 funds by $5.6 Million, which will  require new funding.           ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 17   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 1   Chapter One  Introduction    This document presents a five‐year Short‐Range Transit Plan (SRTP) developed for the City of  San Luis Obispo’s transit program – SLO Transit. A SRTP is intended to provide a detailed  business plan to guide the transit organization over the coming five years. It has been  developed through the following study elements:     A review of the San Luis Obispo region, it is demographics, and its transit needs, as well as  expected changes over the coming five years.     A series of surveys and ridership counts conducted for SLO Transit services.     A detailed review of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing services.     A review of similar “peer” and their performance measures.     Analysis of a wide range of service, capital, financial and institutional options.     Consideration of public input generated through committee meetings, surveys, and review  of other planning documents.     Preparation of detailed operational, capital and institutional plans, including an  implementation plan.     This SRTP plan has been prepared as part of a joint planning process along with the  development of a parallel SRTP for the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA)  program. This has provided an opportunity to focus on how these two major transit programs  can best coordinate to maximum their effectiveness.     This plan development was made possible by the Caltrans award of small urban Transportation  Planning funds to the region. The findings and recommendations of this plan are solely those of  the consultant team; they are not explicitly endorsed by Caltrans or the Federal Transit  Administration.     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 18 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 2 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan         This page left intentionally blank.   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 19   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 3   Chapter Two  Study Setting    The study area consists of the City of San Luis Obispo. The City is the county seat of San Luis  Obispo County, which is located on the Central Coast of California midway between San  Francisco and Los Angeles. The City, served by both RTA and SLO Transit, has an estimated  population of 46,377 (2013 US Census Bureau estimate). San Luis Obispo is home to the  California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), a major source of trip generation,  employment, and other overall economic activity.     EXISTING DEMOGRAPHICS    Table 1 and Figures 1 through 7 present key demographic data for the San Luis Obispo at the  detailed block group level. Note that, as census block group boundaries do not coincide with  city limits, these data do not specifically represent characteristics within the city only. A review  of this data indicates the following:      Total population of the area is 58,684, per the most recent Census data. Population density  within the City, as shown in Figure 1, is greatest in the central area, around the Cal Poly  campus, and in the southeast area between Broad Street and Johnson Avenue. The  California Men’s Colony Prison, along State Route 1 outside the city limits, is another area of  high population density.     There are a total of 231 households without vehicles, or 1.3 percent of the total. The  percentage of zero‐car households in each block group is shown in Figure 2. Areas with  relatively high concentrations are found in the northwest part of the city (along Foothill  Boulevard) as well as the southern part of the city.      Youth (persons under 18 years of age) total 2,838, or 4.8 percent of total population. Areas  with relatively high concentrations of youth include the southern portion of the city, along  Foothill Boulevard, and along Los Osos Valley Road. Figure 3 presents the density of youth  population.     Elderly persons age over 64 total 3,068 (5.2 percent). While there are many areas with  elderly population, particular concentrations are found near downtown, and south between  Broad Street and the rail tracks. The density of elderly population is shown in Figure 4.     There are a total of 14,579 persons living in households below the federal poverty level  (24.8 percent of total population). Areas of concentrations of persons below poverty consist  of the neighborhood northeast of downtown, and portions of northwest San Luis Obispo     Persons who indicate they have a mobility disability total 2,259, excluding those at the  Men’s Colony prison. This is equal to 4.2 percent of the population. The percentage of  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 20 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 4 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan        TA B L E  1:  Sa n  Lu i s  Ob i s p o  De m o g r a p h i c  Da t a  by  Bl o c k  Gr o u p De s c r i p t i o n # % # % # % # % 10 9 . 0 1 1 3, 5 4 8 6 0 7  $             6 ,19 0   0 3 4 1 . 0 % 0 0 . 0 % 6 1 9 1 7 . 4 % 59 1. 7 % Ye s 2 4, 8 4 3 3 2 3  $             6 ,18 8   0 2 6 0 . 5 % 8 0 . 2 % 6 6 5 1 3 . 7 % 52 1. 1 % Ye s 10 9 . 0 2 1 1, 2 1 9 3 9 5  $         32 ,77 4   4 0 0 . 0 % 5 1 4 . 2 % 8 0 6 6 6 . 1 % 23 1. 9 % Ye s 2 97 0 6 8 7  $             9 ,65 1   7 1 6 1 . 6 % 2 7 2 . 8 % 5 9 5 6 1 . 3 % 53 5. 5 % Ye s 3 1, 7 8 0 7 6 1  $         16 ,38 5   04 3 2 . 4 % 8 0 . 4 % 1 ,11 3 6 2 . 5 % 71 4. 0 % Ye s 11 0 . 0 1 1 2, 2 1 2 5 0 1  $         67 ,71 1   13 2 1 4 9 . 7 % 1 9 9 9 . 0 % 3 4 3 1 5 . 5 % 60 2. 7 % Ye s 2 1, 4 0 1 7 8 8  $     10 3 ,60 3   0 7 0 5 . 0 % 2 0 7 1 4 . 8 % 1 9 2 1 3 . 7 % 45 3. 2 % Ye s 3 1, 9 2 7 7 5 1  $         41 ,36 4   0 1 5 4 8 . 0 % 3 1 2 1 6 . 2 % 2 8 3 1 4 . 7 % 33 1. 7 % Ye s 11 0 . 0 2 1 1, 9 7 1 4 4 1  $         56 ,37 5   8 7 9 4 . 0 % 1 2 6 6 . 4 % 5 9 5 3 0 . 2 % 74 3. 8 % Ye s 2 1, 3 4 8 5 3 0  $         12 ,08 3   0 5 5 4 . 1 % 0 0 . 0 % 8 5 4 6 3 . 4 % 16 1. 2 % Ye s 11 1 . 0 1 1 93 4 7 6 1  $         40 ,60 0   0 2 5 2 . 7 % 3 4 3 . 6 % 2 4 6 2 6 . 3 % 60 6. 4 % Ye s 2 1, 3 8 7 4 9 2  $         29 ,17 3   0 6 4 4 . 6 % 5 0 3 . 6 % 4 6 9 3 3 . 8 % 10 9 7. 9 % Ye s 3 1, 0 3 0 6 9 2  $         46 ,40 4   22 2 7 2 . 6 % 4 9 4 . 8 % 3 3 3 3 2 . 3 % 16 1. 6 % Ye s 11 1 . 0 2 1 1, 5 9 0 4 8 8  $         43 ,76 9   0 5 9 3 . 7 % 1 1 0 6 . 9 % 5 8 4 3 6 . 7 % 78 4. 9 % Ye s 2 1, 0 9 4 5 1 2  $         48 ,94 7   12 7 2 6 . 6 % 2 2 2 . 0 % 3 3 0 3 0 . 2 % 70 6. 4 % Ye s 3 1, 0 3 6 7 1 3  $         60 ,83 3   0 5 7 5 . 5 % 6 5 6 . 3 % 1 1 5 1 1 . 1 % 26 2. 5 % Ye s 4 1, 6 4 2 5 2 3  $         50 ,78 7   0 4 5 2 . 7 % 1 9 1 . 2 % 4 8 3 2 9 . 4 % 44 2. 7 % Ye s 11 1 . 0 3 1 1, 3 9 8 6 1 0  $         42 ,23 2   30 1 8 5 1 3 . 2 % 5 4 3 . 9 % 2 5 3 1 8 . 1 % 67 4. 8 % Ye s 2 1, 0 3 5 7 9 7  $         40 ,79 5   21 2 8 2 . 7 % 1 9 8 1 9 . 1 % 1 7 6 1 7 . 0 % 63 6. 1 % Ye s 11 2 1 2, 0 9 6 3 9 5  $         16 ,21 3   11 8 6 4 . 1 % 6 1 2 . 9 % 1 ,35 7 6 4 . 7 % 11 4 5. 4 % Ye s 2 1, 1 6 2 2 9 7  $         99 ,45 8   17 1 4 2 1 2 . 2 % 1 3 0 1 1 . 2 % 1 6 6 1 4 . 3 % 0 0. 0 % Ye s 3 98 1 7 7 0  $         62 ,34 4   4 5 6 5 . 7 % 4 4 4 . 5 % 2 5 1 2 5 . 6 % 19 1. 9 % Ye s 4 1, 6 3 5 3 3 6  $         38 ,40 9   0 5 3 3 . 2 % 2 8 4 1 7 . 4 % 9 1 1 5 5 . 7 % 70 4. 3 % Ye s 5 76 1 1 2 5 9  $         62 ,36 4   0 5 8 7 . 6 % 7 5 9 . 9 % 1 3 1 1 7 . 2 % 46 6. 0 % Ye s 11 3 1 3, 3 0 4 8 7 8  $         54 ,83 5   16 2 1 9 6 . 6 % 2 4 4 7 . 4 % 6 7 2 2 0 . 3 % 19 5 5. 9 % Ye s 2 2, 5 3 5 4 4 7  $         71 ,17 6   0 1 4 7 5 . 8 % 1 3 2 5 . 2 % 6 7 7 2 6 . 7 % 14 3 5. 6 % Ye s 3 1, 1 4 9 2 2 1  $         78 ,19 4   0 1 4 8 1 2 . 9 % 1 1 8 1 0 . 3 % 7 8 6 . 8 % 54 4. 7 % Ye s 4 96 8 0  $         59 ,29 7   0 6 6 6 . 8 % 4 0 4 . 1 % 3 9 6 4 0 . 9 % 87 9. 0 % Ye s 11 4 C A  Me n ' s  Co l o n y 1 4, 8 2 7 7 1 8  ‐   0 0 0 . 0 % 0 0 . 0 % 0 0 . 0 % 15 1 5 31 . 4 % Ye s 11 5 . 0 1 S L O  ‐   S.  Hi g ue r a  St .   1 1, 7 4 1 5 1 1  $         46 ,40 6   14 1 2 8 7 . 4 % 1 3 3 7 . 6 % 2 7 7 1 5 . 9 % 19 7 11 . 3 % Ye s 11 5 . 0 3 1 1, 6 0 7 7 2 6  $     10 7 ,03 1   11 2 1 6 1 3 . 4 % 8 2 5 . 1 % 2 5 0 1 5 . 6 % 24 1. 5 % Ye s 2 2, 0 1 2 2 6 0  $         81 ,87 5   41 2 1 3 1 0 . 6 % 1 3 5 6 . 7 % 2 2 9 1 1 . 4 % 91 4. 5 % Ye s 11 5 . 0 4 1 58 8 2 7  $         60 ,71 4   0 4 3 7 . 3 % 4 1 7 . 0 % 1 0 2 1 7 . 3 % 41 7. 0 % No 2 95 3  $         76 ,87 5   0 1 0 1 . 0 % 1 0 1 . 0 % 2 8 2 . 9 % 15 9 16 . 7 % Ye s TO T A L :  SL O   Ar e a 58 , 6 8 4 1 8 2 1 7 23 1 2 , 8 3 8 4 . 8 % 3 , 0 6 8 5 . 2 % 1 4 , 5 7 9 2 4 . 8 % 3 , 7 7 4 6 . 4 % 58 0 9 6 23 1 2 7 9 5 3 0 2 7 1 4 4 7 7 3 7 3 3 99 % 10 0 % 9 8 % 9 9 % 9 9 % 99 % So u r c e :  US  Ce n s u s  Am e r i c a n  Co m m u n i t y  Su r v e y  20 0 9  ‐   20 1 3  Es t i m a t e s Ze r o   Ve h i c l e   Ho u s e h o l d s To t a l   Po p u l a t i o n To t a l   Ho u s e h o l d s Se r v e d  by   Tr a n s i t ? To t a l  Se r v e d  by   Pu b l i c  Tr a n s i t Yo u t h   (U n d e r  18 ) El d e r l y   (O v e r  64 ) Po v e r t y   Po p u l a t i o n Di s a b l e d   Po p u l a t i o n Me d i a n   Ho u s e h o l d   In c o m e SL O  ‐   So u t h  Ce n t r a l SL O  ‐   Fo o t h i l l  Bl v d SL O  ‐   La g u n a  La k e SL O  ‐   So u t h Ce n s u s   Tr a c t Cu e s t a / L o s  Pa d r e s  Na t.  Fo r e s t Bl o c k   Gr o u p SL O  ‐   Ca l  Po l y SL O  ‐   Ce n t r a l SL O  ‐   Jo h n s o n  Av e . SL O  ‐   Ea s t SL O  ‐   Do w n t o w n SL O  ‐   Ra i l r o a d  Di s t r i c t ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 21   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 5        Cal PolyCal Poly CuestaCuesta College College 1 San LuisSan Luis ObispoObispo E d n a R d 1 B r o a d S t Hig u e r a St Marsh S t Elk s L n Foothill Blvd Mont e r e y S t B iddl e Ranc h Rd San L ui s Ba y Dr C h o r r o S t J o h n s o n A v e Los O s o s Valley Rd Orcut t R d P ric e C a n y on R d South St Tan k Farm Rd 1 0 1 M adon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Persons Per Square Mile 218.9 - 1100 1101 - 2700 2701 - 4200 4201 - 7000 7001 - 12430 San Luis Obispo City Area 0241MilesI Figure  Population Density- ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 6 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          Cal PolyCal Poly CuestaCuesta College College 1 San LuisSan Luis ObispoObispo E d n a R d 1 B r o a d S t Hig u e r a St Mars h S t Elk s L n Foothill Blvd Mont e r e y S t B iddl e Ranc h Rd San L ui s Ba y Dr C h o r r o S t J o h n s o n A v e Los O s o s Valley Rd Orcu t t R d P ric e C a n y on R d South St Tan k Farm Rd 1 0 1 M adon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Percent Zero-Car Households 0% - 1% 1%- 2% 2% - 3% 4% - 6% 7% - 16% San Luis Obispo City Area 0241MilesI Figure  Percentage of Zero-Car Households- ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 23   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 7        C a l P o l yC a l P o l y C u e s t aC u e s t a C o l l e g e C o l l e g e 1 S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o E d n a R d 1 Br o a d S t Higu e r a S t Marsh S t Elks L n Foothill Blvd Monter e y S t Biddle Ranc h R d San Luis Bay Dr C h o r r o S t Jo h n s o n A v e Los Os o s V a l l e y R d Orcut t R d Pric e C a n y o n R d South St Tank Farm Rd 10 1 Madon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Youth Per Square Mile 0 - 55 56 - 200 201 - 340 341 - 550 551 - 1025 San Luis Obispo City Area 0 2 41 Miles I Figure Density of the Population Under the Age of 18- ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 24 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 8 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          Cal PolyCal Poly CuestaCuesta College College 1 San LuisSan Luis ObispoObispo E d n a R d 1 B r o a d S t Hig u e r a St Mars h S t Elk s L n Foothill Blvd Mont e r e y S t B iddl e Ranc h Rd San L ui s Ba y Dr C h o r r o S t J o h n s o n A v e Los O s o s Valley Rd Orcu t t R d P ric e C a n y on R d South St Tan k Farm Rd 1 0 1 M ado n n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Persons Over 65 Per Square Mile 0 - 15 16 - 115 116 - 300 301 - 410 411 - 953 San Luis Obispo City Area 0241MilesI Figure  Density of the Population Over the Age of 65 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 25   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 9        Cal PolyCal Poly CuestaCuesta College College 1 San LuisSan Luis ObispoObispo E d n a R d 1 B r o a d S t Hig u e r a St Mars h S t Elk s L n Foothill Blvd Mont e r e y S t B iddl e Ranc h Rd San L ui s Ba y Dr C h o r r o S t J o h n s o n A v e Los O s o s Valley Rd Orcu t t R d P ric e C a n y on R d South St Tan k Farm Rd 1 0 1 M adon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Percent Living Below the Poverty Level 0% - 7% 7.1% - 21% 21.1% - 33% 33.1% - 44% 44.1% - 66.1% San Luis Obispo City Area 0241MilesI Figure  Percentage of the Population Living Below the Poverty Level ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 26 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 10 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          Cal PolyCal Poly CuestaCuesta College College 1 San LuisSan Luis ObispoObispo E d n a R d 1 B r o a d S t Hi gu e r a St Mars h S t Elk s L n Foothill Blvd Mo nt erey S t B iddle R anch Rd San Lu is Bay Dr C h o r r o S t J o h n s o n A v e Orcutt R d Los Os o s Va l l ey Rd Pric e C any o n R d South St Tank Farm Rd 1 0 1 Mado n na R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Median Income $0.- $17,000 $17,000 - $49,000 $49,000- $63,000 $63,000 - $82,000 $82,000 - $107,031 San Luis Obispo City Area 0241MilesI Figure  Median Household Income ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 27   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 11        C a l P o l yC a l P o l y C u e s t aC u e s t a C o l l e g e C o l l e g e 1 S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o E d n a R d 1 Br o a d S t Higu e r a S t Marsh S t Elk s L n Foothill Blvd Monter e y S t Biddle Ranc h R d San Luis Bay Dr C h o r r o S t Jo h n s o n A v e Los Os o s V a l l e y R d Orcut t R d Pric e C a n y o n R d South St Tank Farm Rd 10 1 Madon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Percent with Disabilities 0% - 2% 2.1% - 4.5% 4.6% - 6.5% 6.6% - 11.5% 11.6% - 31.4% 0 2 41 Miles I Figure Percentage of the Population with Disabilities ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 28 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 12 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     population with a mobility disability is shown in Figure 7. Areas of concentration include the  southwest portions of the central core, as well as along Los Osos Valley Road.    As also shown in Table 1, 99 percent of total population in the city area is currently served by  public transit1. This indicates a high degree of coverage by the existing route system.    POPULATION FORECAST    Between 2015 and 2020, total population of San Luis Obispo is forecast to grow by 1,301  persons, as presented in the Final Report: San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing and  Employment Forecast prepared for the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments in 2011. This  corresponds to a modest 2.9 percent growth over the five‐year period, or 0.6 percent per year.  While population forecasts by age are not available specifically for the City, the California  Department of Finance’s Demographic Research Unit’s forecasts of countywide population  changes indicates that the greatest growth across San Luis Obispo County is forecast to occur  among residents age 65 to 79, which is expected to increase by 5 percent per year.                                                                        1 A quarter‐mile walk distance is used to define the service area.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 29  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 13   Chapter 3  Existing Transit Services    San Luis Obispo is served by the two major SLO Transit and RTA systems, as well as intercity  services, social service programs, taxi service and ridesharing services.    SLO TRANSIT    SLO Transit, a program operated out of the Department of Public Works, is the City of San Luis  Obispo’s transit provider and operates local fixed route service throughout the City and the  adjacent Cal Poly campus, as well as trolley service in the downtown area. Within the Public  Works Department, SLO Transit staff consists of three employees: a Transit Manager who  reports to the Public Works Deputy Director, a Transit Coordinator and a Transit Assistant (both  report to the Transit Manager). Service operations and vehicle maintenance are currently  contracted out to First Transit. Figure 8 represents the organizational structure of SLO Transit.  In addition, the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) is an advisory group that provides  transit related recommendations to the City Council.        Transit Operations Contractor Transit Coordinator 1.0 FTE Figure 8: SLO Transit  Organizational Chart PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Director  of Public Works 1.0 FTE TRANSPORTATION  AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PW Deputy Director 1.0 FTE Transit Assistant 1.0 FTE TRANSIT SERVICES Transit Manager 1.0 FTE ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 30 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 14 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     Overall Service Description    SLO Transit provides mobility throughout the City and on the Cal Poly campus with seven fixed  bus routes on weekdays, six routes on Saturdays, and four routes on Sundays. Service levels are  slightly reduced when Cal Poly classes are not in full session. In addition to these routes, SLO  Transit also manages the Downtown Trolley, which runs from North Monterey St. to downtown  SLO year‐round on Thursdays and on Fridays and Saturdays during the summer season.       These routes provide service throughout the city and connect to the Cal Poly campus. Six of the  seven fixed routes meet at the Transit Center at City Hall, where transfers are available (with a  one‐block walk) to RTA Route 9, 10, 12, and 14 services. It should be noted that not all SLO  Transit routes have timed‐transfers at the city’s transit center due to the varying route cycle  lengths, and none of RTA’s routes are scheduled to meet SLO Transit’s buses (RTA’s buses are  scheduled to arrive at 25 minutes after each hour and depart at 33 minutes past each hour).  Table 2 presents the service span and frequency for SLO Transit routes.         The mileage and operating speed of the SLO Transit routes are shown in Table 3. While routes  operating in outlying areas (like Routes 4 and 5) have relatively high operating speeds, others  (such as the Trolley) operate relatively slowly.    As shown in Table 4, average daily ridership totals 3,615 passenger boardings on weekdays,  1,197 on Saturdays and 982 on Sundays. Over the course of the year, ridership totals to  approximately 1,029,000 passenger boardings. The busiest routes are Routes 4 and 5, which  together serve almost half of the system‐wide passengers.  TABLE 2: SLO Transit Service Span and Frequency Route Span Frequency  (Minutes)Span Span Frequency  (Minutes) Route 6A 7:16 AM – 10:29 PM 30 (60 evenings) 9:10 AM – 5:29 PM 9:10 AM – 5:29 PM 60 Old SLO  Trolley 5 PM – 9 PM 20 5 PM – 9 PM 5 PM – 9 PM 20 Source: SLO Transit Timetables Note: Service for Route 2  ends at 5:00 pm on Sundays. Frequency  (Minutes) Weekday Extended Weekday Labor Day – June 13 Weekends Route 16 0 N o Service No Service7:15 AM – 6:09 PM 40 Route 2406:50 PM – 9:18 PM 60 8:03 AM – 5:40 PM 40 Route 3406:17 PM ‐ 9:45 PM 60 8:25 AM ‐ 5:37 PM 6:03 AM – 5:40 PM 6:04 AM – 6:17 PM Route 4306:18 PM – 9:45 PM 60 8:04 AM – 5:37 PM 40 Route 530No Service 8:20 AM – 6:17 PM 60 6:34 PM – 6:15 PM 6:20 AM – 7:21 PM Weekday Labor Day – Mid‐June Saturdays Labor Day – Mid‐June Weekday Mid‐June – Labor Day Route 6B 30 (60 evenings) 8:45 AM – 5:56 PM 60 8:45 AM – 5:56 PM 60 60 Thursdays (Year Round)Fridays June – Labor Day Saturdays April – October 20 7:02 AM – 10:56 PM ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 31   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 15           Annual service quantities (miles and hours of revenue service) are shown in Table 5. SLO Transit  operates 361,761 vehicle‐miles over 29,731 vehicle‐hours over the course of the year. This  table also presents the productivity of the routes, as measured in the passenger boardings per  revenue hour and per revenue mile. As indicated, the SLO Transit program as a whole serves  34.59 passengers for every revenue‐hour of service, and 2.84 passengers per mile. The most  productive individual route is Route 6A, which serves 59.33 passengers per revenue hour and  7.14 passengers per revenue mile. While Route 1 has the lowest productivity (19.94 passengers  per revenue hour and 1.80 passengers per revenue mile), it should be noted that these figures  are still quite strong for the size of the city and the size of the transit program.       TABLE 3: SLO Transit Roundtrip Mileage, Cycle Time, and Average Speed Route 1 10.25 56 10.98 Route 2 7.14 35 12.24 35 12.24 35 12.24 Route 3 7.91 32 14.83 32 14.83 32 14.83 Route 4 13.7 55 14.95 55 14.95 55 14.95 Route 5 13.79 57 14.52 57 14.52 57 14.52 Route 6A 4.16 19 13.14 19 13.14 19 13.14 Route 6B 4.38 34 7.73 24 10.95 24 10.95 Old SLO  Trolley 2.78 24 6.95 24 6.95 24 6.95 Source: SLO Transit timetables and TransitMix Pro Route Weekday Saturday Sunday Roundtrip  Mileage Cycle Time Cycle Time Cycle Time No service No service Avg.  Speed Avg.  Speed Avg.  Speed TABLE 4: SLO Transit  Average Ridership by Route and Day Route Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual Route 1 213 0 0 54,832 Route 2 350 216 185 110,846 Route 3 436 293 247 140,408 Route 4 870 332 284 255,880 Route 5 809 317 266 238,476 Route 6A 482 0 0 123,757 Route 6B 360 7 0 92,783 Old SLO  Trolley 95 32 0 11,556 TOTAL 3,615 1,197 982 1,028,538 Source: Ridership and hours  reports  FY2013/14 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 32 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 16 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan         Table 6 presents SLO Transit operating vehicle requirements. A maximum of 10 SLO Transit  vehicles are on the roads at the peak time on weekdays, with 8 on Saturdays and 7 on Sundays.        Key SLO Transit financial indicators are shown in Table 7. In FY 2013/14, the service incurred  just under $3 Million in operating costs, of which $668,550 were covered by operating  revenues. The overall cost per passenger was $2.75, while the farebox recovery ratio  (proportion of operating costs covered by fare revenues) was 22.54 percent. Route 6A had the  best financial efficiency, requiring only $1.44 of costs per passenger‐trip and covering almost 43  percent of costs through passenger revenues.  Route Ridership Revenue  Hours Revenue  Miles Passenger per  Revenue Hour Passenger per  Revenue Mile Route 1 54,832 2,750 30,468 19.94 1.8 Route 2 110,846 3,966 43,750 27.95 2.53 Route 3 140,408 4,125 50,662 34.04 2.78 Route 4 255,880 6,767 92,787 37.81 2.76 Route 5 238,476 7,470 104,252 115.21 2.29 Route 6A 123,757 2,070 17,342 59.33 7.14 Route 6B 92,783 2,086 18,999 44.48 4.88 Old SLO  Trolley 11,556 497 3,501 23.25 3.3 TOTAL 1,028,538 29,731 361.761 34.59 2.84 Source: Ridership and hours report FY 2013/14 TABLE 5: SLO Transit Annual Ridership, Revenue Miles, Revenue Hours,  and Performance Measures TABLE 6: SLO Transit Vehicle Requirements Route Weekday Saturday Sunday Route 11 0 0 Route 21 1 1 Route 31 1 1 Route 42 1 1 Route 52 1 1 Route 6A 1 1 1 Routs  6B 1 1 1 Old SLO  Trolley 1 1 0 TOTAL 10 7 6 Source: Route and Schedule Stats  Report ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 33   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 17       Fixed Route Services    Existing SLO Transit fixed routes are as follows:     Route 1 ‐‐ As shown in Figure 9, Route 1 (Broad/Johnson/University Square) consists of a  one‐way loop serving the southeastern section of San Luis Obispo, along with two‐way  service ending in a small loop in the northwestern part of the city providing service to  downtown.     Route 2 ‐‐ Route 2 (South Higuera/Suburban) serves the area southwest of downtown San  Luis Obispo with two‐way service ending in a small loop in the downtown area, as shown in  Figure 10.     Route 3 – Figure 11 shows that Route 3 (Johnson/Broad/Marigold) serves southeastern San  Luis Obispo with a large one‐way loop through downtown.     Route 4 ‐‐ Route 4 (Madonna/Laguna Lake/Cal Poly) is a single one‐way loop that covers a  large area over the northwest, north, south, and southwest parts of town. The route  provides access to Cal Poly campus and downtown San Luis Obispo, as shown in Figure 12.     Route 5 ‐‐ Route 5 (Cal Poly/Laguna Lake/Madonna) is a single one‐way loop that covers a  large area over the northwest, north, south, and southwest parts of town on a reverse  direction to Route 4. The route, shown in Figure 12, provides access to Cal Poly campus and  downtown San Luis Obispo.     Route 6A ‐‐ Route 6A Cal Poly/Highland serves the Cal Poly community and surrounding  neighborhoods to the west of the campus. Route 6A is interlined with Route 6B in a figure‐  TABLE 7: SLO Transit Financial Indicators Route Ridership Cost Revenue Cost  per  Passenger Revenue per  Passenger Farebox  Recovery Route 1 54,832 $215,426 $35,641 $3.74 $0.65 16.54% Route 2 110,846 $364,739 $72,050 $3.14 $0.65 19.75% Route 3 140,408 $413,767 $91,265 $2.81 $0.65 22.06% Route 4 255,880 $787,420 $166,322 $2.93 $0.65 21.12% Route 5 238,476 $768,849 $155,009 $3.07 $0.65 20.16% Route 6A 123,757 $187,569 $80,442 $1.44 $0.65 42.89% Route 6B 92,783 $194,998 $60,309 $2.00 $0.65 30.93% Old SLO  Trolley 11,556 $33,428 $7,511 $2.76 $0.65 22.47% TOTAL 1,028,538 $2,966,196 $668,550 2.75 $0.65 22.54% Source: SLO Transit budget FY 2014.15 budget (actuals from FY 2013/14) and ridership/hours reports ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 34 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 18 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          C a l P o l yC a l P o l y 1 S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o 1 Br o a d S t O s o s S t Prado R d Hig u e r a S t E d n a R d To r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t Elks L n Foo t h i l l R d Foothill Blvd C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Monte r e y S t Orcutt Rd C h o r r o S t Jo h n s o n A v e L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d South St Tank Farm Rd 10 1 Madon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors Mustang Village/Stenner Glen Foothill Plaza Shopping Center T San Luis ObispoTransit Center San Luis ObispoHigh School French Hospital Amtrak DMV/Social Services Trader Joes/Food4Less Target/Home Depot/Costco Marigold Center Mission San Luis Obispo e e e e 0 1 20.5 Miles I Figure SLO Transit Route 1 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 35   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 19        C a l P o l yC a l P o l y 1 S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o 1 Br o a d S t O s o s S t Prado R d Hig u e r a S t E d n a R d To r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t Elks L n Foo t h i l l R d Foothill Blvd C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Monte r e y S t Orcutt Rd C h o r r o S t Jo h n s o n A v e L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d South St Tank Farm Rd 10 1 Madon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors Mustang Village/Stenner Glen Foothill Plaza Shopping Center T San Luis ObispoTransit Center San Luis ObispoHigh School French Hospital Amtrak DMV/Social Services Trader Joes/Food4Less Target/Home Depot/Costco Madonna Plaza Marigold Center Mission San Luis Obispo Colonial ManorMobile Home Park;Oceanaire Mobile Home Park c c c c c c c 0 1 20.5 Miles I Figure 1SLO Transit Route 2 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 36 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 20 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          C a l P o l yC a l P o l y 1 S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o 1 Br o a d S t O s o s S t Prado R d Hig u e r a S t To r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t Elks L n Foo t h i l l R d Foothill Blvd C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Monte r e y S t Or c u t t R d C h o r r o S t Jo h n s o n A v e L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d South St Tank Farm Rd 10 1 E d n a R d Madon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors Mustang Village/Stenner Glen Foothill Plaza Shopping Center T San Luis ObispoTransit Center San Luis ObispoHigh School French Hospital Amtrak DMV/Social Services Trader Joes/Food4Less Target/Home Depot/Costco Madonna PlazaShopping Center Marigold Center d d 0 1 20.5 Miles I Figure 1SLO Transit Route 3 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 37   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 21        C a l P o l yC a l P o l y 1 S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o 1 Br o a d S t O s o s S t Prado R d Hig u e r a S t To r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t Elks L n Foo t h i l l R d Foothill Blvd C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Monte r e y S t Or c u t t R d C h o r r o S t Jo h n s o n A v e L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d South St Tank Farm Rd 10 1 E d n a R d Madon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors Mustang Village/Stenner Glen Foothill Plaza Shopping Center T San Luis ObispoTransit Center Amtrak Target LagunaMiddle School Laguna LakeMobile Estatesl 4 f 4 f 5 f 5 f 5 f 4/5 f 4 f 5f Home Depot Costco f f Madonna Plaza 0 1 20.5 Miles I Figure 1SLO Transit Route 4 and 5 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 38 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 22 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     eight route pattern on weekends, as well as in the evening and during the summer. This  route is shown in Figure 13.     Route 6B ‐‐ Route 6B Cal Poly/Downtown serves both the Cal Poly community connecting to  downtown, as reflected in Figure 14. Route 6A is interlined with Route 6B in a figure‐eight  route pattern on weekends, as well as in the evening and during the summer.    In addition, the Old SLO Trolley is operated from 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM every Thursday, on  Fridays from June to Labor Day, and Saturdays from April to October. The trolley runs a fixed  route shown in Figure 15 between Downtown and upper Monterey Street, making 18 stops,  with 4 timed stops every 20 minutes at La Cuesta Inn, Monterey at Santa Rosa, Marsh at Chorro  and Monterey at California.    SLO Transit also recently added two new routes. Starting in August 2015, the Tripper route  connects downtown with the San Luis Obispo High School campus on school days, providing  three runs in the morning and three runs in the afternoon for all types of passengers. The  Kennedy Library Tripper began service in February 2016, providing three morning runs  between the Foothill Boulevard corridor, the Cal Poly campus, and downtown during the  academic year.    Service Changes over the Last Three Years    There have been no major service changes since 2009 when the double deck bus was  purchased. To facilitate the operations of the double deck bus, there were minor route changes  to address clearance issues for these buses. The result is that changes in service ridership have  been organic with very little change in service levels of patterns that have impacted ridership.    Fare Structure    SLO Transit’s base cash fare is $1.25, and $0.60 for senior citizens and passengers with a  disability as well as Medicare card holders. Discounts are provided for the purchase of passes,  which are available in increments of 1 day, 3 day, 5 day, 7 day, and 31 day. All but the 31 day  pass are available for purchase onboard buses. SLO Transit also offers discounted 16 ride passes  (15 ride passes for seniors and disabled passengers. Thirty‐one day passes and multiple ride  passes are sold at the City of San Luis Obispo City Hall Finance Counter and at the San Luis  Obispo Chamber of Commerce. A Regional Day Pass also available for $5.00, which is good for  fixed route rides on SLO Transit as well as RTA, Morro Bay Transit, SCT and Paso Express.  Similarly, a Regional 31‐Day pass is offered for $64.00 for all of the fixed routes throughout the  County. In addition, multiple ride (“punch”) passes are available at $20 for 16 regular passenger  rides, and at $9 for 15 senior/disabled rides.    The following populations are able to ride for free on SLO Transit buses; seniors over 80 years  old, children under 5, and Cal Poly students, faculty and staff. The pre‐paid unlimited access  offered to Cal Poly affiliates is provided as a result of an annual financial agreement negotiated   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 39   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 23        C a l P o l yC a l P o l y 1 S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o 1 Br o a d S t O s o s S t Prado R d Hig u e r a S t To r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t Elks L n Foo t h i l l R d Foothill Blvd C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Monte r e y S t Or c u t t R d C h o r r o S t Jo h n s o n A v e L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d South St Tank Farm Rd 10 1 E d n a R d Madon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors Mustang Village/Stenner Glen Foothill Plaza Shopping Center T San Luis ObispoTransit Center San Luis ObispoHigh School French Hospital Amtrak DMV/Social Services Trader Joes/Food4Less Target/Home Depot/Costco MadonnaPlaza Marigold Center Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center c c c 0 1 20.5 Miles I Figure 1SLO Transit Route 6A ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 40 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 24 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          C a l P o l yC a l P o l y 1 S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o 1 Br o a d S t O s o s S t Prado R d Hig u e r a S t To r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t Elks L n Foo t h i l l R d Foothill Blvd C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Monte r e y S t Or c u t t R d C h o r r o S t Jo h n s o n A v e L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d South St Tank Farm Rd 10 1 E d n a R d Madon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors Mustang Village/Stenner Glen Foothill Plaza Shopping Center T San Luis ObispoTransit Center San Luis ObispoHigh School French Hospital Amtrak DMV/Social Services Trader Joes/Food4Less Target/Home Depot/Costco MadonnaPlaza Marigold Center Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center d d d d 0 1 20.5 Miles I Figure 1SLO Transit Route 6B ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 41   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 25        C a l P o l yC a l P o l y T S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o Hig u e r a S t Br o a d S t 1 O s o s S t To r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t Foothill Blvd C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Monte r e y S t Jo h n s o n A v e C h o r r o S t South St 101 Madon n a R d Br o a d S t S a n L u i s D r £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors Mission San Luis Obispo SLOTransit Center c c c c 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles I Figure 1Old SLO Trolley Map ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 42 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 26 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     between Cal Poly and the City of San Luis Obispo. Table 8 presents the fare schedule for SLO  Transit.        Table 9 presents the annual number of passenger boardings by fare instrument, indicating the  following:     Fully 57.4 percent of passengers board as Cal Poly students, staff and faculty.      Only 10.8 percent pay a one‐way cash fare (8.2 percent as regular riders and 2.6 percent as  senior/disabled riders).      The 31‐day pass on SLO Transit is also relatively popular, generating 13 percent of all  boardings (8.8 percent by senior/disabled passengers, 2.2 percent by students, and 2  percent by regular passengers).      The regional fare options are used by 8.2 percent of all SLO Transit boardings, consisting of  6.3 percent using the Regional 31‐day Pass and 1.9 percent by using a Regional Day Pass.     Of note, many of the fare options are little used. The punch pass option is only used by 0.3  percent of all boarding, while the 5‐day and 7‐day pass is only used by 0.1 percent of boarding  each. The time and costs associated with handling these fares may more than offset the  convenience to the few riders using them.       TABLE 8: SLO Transit Fare Structure Regular Fare Senior  (65‐79 years) /  Disabled Medicare  Card  Holders Students  (K‐12) Base/Cash Fare $1.25 $0.60 $0.60  Trolley $0.50 $0.25 —— 1 Day Pass $3.00 $0.25 —— 1 Day Regional Pass $5.00 —— — 3 Day Pass $6.00 —— — 5 Day Pass $10.00 —— — 7 Day Pass $14.00 —— — 31 Day Pass $37.00 $12.50 $12.50 $25.00  15 Ride Pass —$9.00 $9.00 — 16 Ride Pass $20.00 ——— Source: SLO Transit ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 43   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 27       TABLE 9: SLO Transit  Annual  Ridership by Pass Type FY  2013‐14 Annual Ridership % Total  Ridership Cash 93,368 8.2% 1 Ride  Pass 1,020 0.1% 1‐Day Pass 9,591 0.8% 3‐Day Pass 4,038 0.4% 5‐Day Pass 1,199 0.1% 7‐Day Pass 1,240 0.1% 31‐Day Pass 22,806 2.0% Punch Pass 2,045 0.2% Senior/Disabled Cash 29,385 2.6% Senior/Disabled 31‐Day Pass 100,249 8.8% Senior/Disabled Punch Pass 838 0.1% 31‐Day Student Pass 25,027 2.2% Free Riders 14,868 1.3% VIP 10,161 0.9% Youth 15,404 1.3% Cal  Poly 651,166 57.0% Cal  Poly Invalid Card 4,522 0.4% Downtown Access Pass 12,765 1.1% Prado Token 8,307 0.7% Regional  Day Pass 21,938 1.9% Regional  31‐Day Pass 71,799 6.3% Amtrak 1 0.0% Pass Override 5,956 0.5% Free Ride  Event 15,133 1.3% Free Token 273 0.0% Newcomer 958 0.1% Promo Pass 545 0.0% Transfers 18,147 1.6% 1,142,749 100.0% Source: SLO  Transit  Total Special Passes  & Programs Regional   Passes Regular Fares  & Passes Discount Fares  & Passes Other ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 44 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 28 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     Capital Inventory    SLO Transit’s capital equipment is used to support SLO Transit service within the City of San Luis  Obispo and on the Cal Poly campus. The vehicle fleet is maintained and stored at a single  maintenance facility within the city. The city is responsible for maintaining bus stops and bus  stop amenities. This section provides a highlight of the current SLO Transit capital equipment  and capital program.    Vehicle Fleet    The current SLO Transit fleet is shown in Table 10. As indicated, it consists of a total of 17  revenue vehicles, including 14 standard buses ranging in length from 30 to 40 feet, a trolley  replica vehicle, a 28 foot cut‐away vehicle, and a double decker bus. All are ADA accessible, and  are equipped with bicycle racks (the majority of which accommodate up to three bicycles). The  double decker bus is typically used on Routes 4 and 5 to help accommodate high peak loads,  while a 30‐foot bus is used on Route 1 due to the constrained street geometrics.        The City has chosen to use clean diesel technologies to address the requirements of the  California Air Resources Board (CARB). The 2015 CARB fleet analysis indicates that this  technology reduces the SLO Transit fleet’s emission of particulate matter (“soot”) by 95  percent.    TABLE 10: SLO Transit Existing Bus Fleet Note: All  buses are  ADA compliant and equipped with bike  racks. Unit Make Model Year Length Capacity Fuel 151 Gillig Low Floor 2001 40 38/2 wc Diesel 152 Gillig Low Floor 2001 40 38/2 wc Diesel 153 Gillig Low Floor 2001 40 38/2 wc Diesel 754 Gillig Low Floor 2007 30 23/2 wc Diesel 755 Gillig Low Floor 2007 30 23/2 wc Diesel 856 Double K Trolley 2008 30 24/2 wc Gasoline 857 Gillig Low Floor 2008 40 36/2 wc Diesel 858 Gillig Low Floor 2008 40 36/2 wc Diesel 859 Gillig Low Floor 2008 40 36/2 wc Diesel 860 Gillig Low Floor 2008 40 36/2 wc Diesel 861 Gillig Low Floor 2008 35 32/2 wc Diesel 862 Gillig Low Floor 2008 35 32/2 wc Diesel 963 Alexander Dennis Double Deck 2009 40 81/2 wc Diesel 1264 Gillig Low Floor 2012 40 36/2 wc Diesel 1365 Gillig Low Floor 2013 40 36/2 wc Diesel 1366 Gillig Low Floor 2013 40 32/2 wc Diesel 1167 Ford Cut‐Away 2011 28 28/2 wc Gasoline ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 45   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 29   SLO Transit implemented an Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) passenger access system using  GPS to transmit vehicle location. Passengers have the ability to track bus locations on the  internet.     Bus Stops    SLO Transit serves over 170 bus stops, as shown in Table 11. The busiest single stop is at  Kennedy Library (916 passenger boardings per day), followed by the Downtown Transit Center  (712). At present, 46 stops have one or more shelters, and an additional 66 stops have bus  benches. Many stops (56) have trash cans. A relatively small number of stops (15) have a  pullout specifically for the transit bus (though many others have curb space sufficient to avoid  blocking a through travel lane). Only three stops currently have bicycle racks. Three stops have  electronic bus information displays, at the following locations:     Cal Poly campus at Kennedy Library (2 signs, one eastbound and one westbound)   Downtown Transit Center (2 signs)    Facilities    SLO Transit has an operations and maintenance facility located at 29 Prado Road in southwest  San Luis Obispo. All SLO Transit vehicles are housed and maintained at this location. This  location is located adjacent to the Water Department facilities. Long term, SLO Transit will need  additional space, which will need to be provided either by expanding at the current site or  possibly moving to a new site.    SLO Transit currently operates out of a Transit Operations & Maintenance Facility located on  Prado Road adjacent to US 101. This facility consists of bus bays totaling 10,600 square feet in  floor area, along with a 5,480 square foot Administration and Maintenance building. The  location is beneficial for the operation of the transit service, as it provides for convenient dead‐ head movements at the beginning and end of service, and the overall site is adequate to  accommodate the program.    Review Past Service /Trend Analysis    A tabulation of Service Levels, Ridership, Funding and Revenue Trend are identified in Table 12.  This data was compiled from annual National Transit Database reports. Since 2003 there has  been a general annual increase in ridership. With an increase in ridership there is also a  consistent increase in fare revenue which supports the total operating revenue budget. Overall,  there has been a slight (11 percent) reduction in revenue vehicle‐hours but a substantial (64  percent) increase in ridership.       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 46 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 30 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan       TABLE 11: SLO Transit Bus Stop Inventory (1 of 3) Ro u t e 1 Ro u t e 2 Ro u t e 3 Ro u t e 4 A Ro u t e 4 B Ro u t e 5 A Ro u t e 5 B Ro u t e 6 A Ro u t e 6 B Ro u t e 6 A / B Ro u t e 2 E v Tr o l l e y Total Daily Boardings Sh e l t e r Be n c h Bi k e R a c k Pu l l o u t Tr a s h C a n El e c t r o n i c S i g n Improvements Nipomo & Higuera  7  Marsh & Broad 13 large, older post Broad & Islay 3 no red curb, bench part of fence Broad & Funston 6  no red curb Broad & Caudill 3 no red curb Broad & Sweeney 2  Orcutt & Duncan 1  no red curb Southwood & Woodside 9  Southwood & Laurel 8  Laurel & Laurel Lane Market 9  Augusta & Laurel 17  Augusta & Gerda 6  Augusta & Bishop 8 no red curb Johnson & Bishop 9 bad red curb condition Johnson & Marsh 10  Monterey & Toro 0 bad red curb condition Santa Rosa & Murray 0 no red curb Foothill & Univ Square  15 no red curb Patricia & Foothill 40 red curb needs repainting Foothill & La Entrada  83  Foothill & Cuesta 0  Highland & Mt. Bishop 6 no red curb Highland & Cuesta 94 red curb needs repainting Highland & Jeffrey 19 Patricia & Highland 25 Foothill & Cuesta 24 Foothill & Ferrini 5 red curb needs repainting Foothill & Ferrini 37  Foothill & Rosita 4 Foothill & Chorro  55 no red curb Foothill & Casa  19  no red curb Foothill & Casa 12 Casa & Deseret 3  Casa & Deseret 31 Murray & Casa 1  Murray & Casa 79 Santa Rosa & Murray 0 no red curb Nipomo & Pismo 8  Pismo & Carmel 2 Pismo & Archer 4 Higuera & South 6 no red curb Higuera & Bridge 0 no red curb 38  defaced shelter Higuera & Prado (southbound)7  Higuera & Granada 3 no red curb, sidewalk cracked Higuera & Silver City 13 sidewalk cracked Tank Farm & Higuera 8 no red curb Higuera & Suburban 62  broken glass panels Higuera & Hind 12 no red curb Higuera & Prado (northbound)10  no red curb Higuera & Margarita (DMV) NB 29 no red curb Routes Served Existing Amenities Location Prado Day Center ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 47   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 31        TABLE 11: SLO Transit Bus Stop Inventory (2 of 3) Ro u t e 1 Ro u t e 2 Ro u t e 3 Ro u t e 4 A Ro u t e 4 B Ro u t e 5 A Ro u t e 5 B Ro u t e 6 A Ro u t e 6 B Ro u t e 6 A / B Ro u t e 2 E v Tr o l l e y Total Daily Boardings Sh e l t e r Be n c h Bi k e R a c k Pu l l o u t Tr a s h C a n El e c t r o n i c S i g n Improvements Higuera & Margarita (DMV) SB 1 no red curb Higuera & Chumash Village 8 no red curb Higuera & Elks 2 no red curb Higuera & South 5 no red curb Marsh & Archer 5  Marsh & Chorro 5   Marsh & Chorro 2 Marsh & Osos 0  Santa Rosa & Higuera  9 bad red curb condition Marsh & Johnson 24  Johnson & Lizzie 5 bad red curb condition Johnson & Lizzie 4 red curb needs repainting Johnson & Bishop 10  Johnson & Sydney 2 Johnson & La Cita 2 Laurel & Augusta 15  Laurel & Southwood 7 no red curb Laurel & Camden 0 no red curb Orcutt & Laurel 40  no red curb Orcutt & Johnson 6 no curb Johnson & Gregory 1 red curb needs repainting Tank Farm & Wavertree 4 no red curb Tank Farm & Brookpine 3 broken glass panels Tank Farm & Hollyhock 1 no red curb, broken glass panels Tank Farm & Poinsettia 10 Broad & Marigold Center 0  no red curb Broad & Capitolio 13 no red curb Broad & Rockview 3 broken glass panels Broad & The Brickyard 28 no red curb, broken glass panel Broad & Humbert 4 no red curb 6  Broad & Santa Barbara 3 no red curb Chorro & Upham 1 Chorro & Islay 2 bad red curb condition Chorro & Monterey 0 Santa Rosa & Marsh 23 bad red curb condition Santa Rosa & Buchon 12 bad red curb condition Santa Barbara & Church 1 no red curb Santa Barbara & High 5 bad red curb condition Santa Barbara & High 5 South & Meadow Park 2 no red curb South & Parker 10 broken glass, sidewalk cracked 52  Madonna & Oceanaire 10  LOVR & Madonna  39  no red curb LOVR & Irish Hills Plaza  31  no red curb LOVR & Auto Park Way 29 LOVR &Laguna Village 54 no red curb LOVR & Oceanaire 0 no red curb The Village at Broad Promenade Existing Amenities Location Routes Served ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 48 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 32 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan       TABLE 11: SLO Transit Bus Stop Inventory (3 of 3) Ro u t e 1 Ro u t e 2 Ro u t e 3 Ro u t e 4 A Ro u t e 4 B Ro u t e 5 A Ro u t e 5 B Ro u t e 6 A Ro u t e 6 B Ro u t e 6 A / B Ro u t e 2 E v Tr o l l e y Total Daily Boardings Sh e l t e r Be n c h Bi k e R a c k Pu l l o u t Tr a s h C a n El e c t r o n i c S i g n Improvements LOVR & Laguna Lane 0 no red curb, sidewalk cracked LOVR & Laguna Lane 9 no red curb LOVR & Descanso 6 no red curb LOVR & Diablo 5 no red curb LOVR & Diablo 3 no red curb LOVR & Valle Vista 4 LOVR & Valle Vista 4 Foothill & Blarney 9 Foothill & Blarney 0 Ramona & Tassajara  155  Ramona & Palomar  233 graffitti  285 no red curb Mill & Park  8 bad red curb condition Prefumo Canyon & Del Rio 24  Del Rio & Descanso 9 no red curb Mill & Santa Rosa  45 bad red curb condition Mill & Santa Rosa  0 Mill & Johnson  34  Mill & Johnson  6 Mill & Pepper  63  Mill & Pepper  2 Phillips & Pepper  43 Phillips & Pepper  4 California & Phillips 39 California & Taft 13 Mill & Grand 116  Grand & Abbott 172 m issing glass panel Grand & Wilson  10 Grand & Wilson 10  Grand & McCollum 50 bad red curb condition Grand & McCollum  12 bad red curb condition 73 no red curb Descanso & LOVR 21  LOVR & Oceanaire 11 no red curb LOVR & Laguna Village 14 bench removed, bad red curb Madonna & Oceanaire 12  21 no red curb 3  South & Parker 13  no red curb South & Exposition 5 no red curb South & King 4 no red curb South & King 3 no red curb South & Meadow Park 10 no red curb, old park bench Santa Barbara & Church 14  Amtrak St. & Ion 10  Santa Rosa & Leff 24 bad red curb condition Santa Rosa & Buchon 19  Cal Poly & Kennedy RT5 194 no red curb 916 no red curb Higuera & Margarita 1 no red curb  712  46 66 3 15 56 3 Existing Amenities Madonna Plaza SB Kennedy Library Performing Arts Center Routes Served Downtown Transit Center Performing Arts Center Madonna Plaza NB Location ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 49  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 33       Current Financial Conditions    Existing Operating Costs and Cost Model    Table 13 presents the existing annual operating costs for SLO Transit, assuming the current  services. As shown, the bulk of the costs are associated with the service contractor, totaling 72  percent of total costs. Costs outside of the service contract, which include City management  and oversight, fuel, marketing and major vehicle repairs, constitute the remaining 28 percent.    The figures in Table 13 can be used to generate a “cost model” – a formula that can be used to  estimate the cost impacts of service changes. As a contracted service, this formula reflects the  cost factors reflected in the contract. The current contract defines payments to the contractor  based upon a monthly fixed fee plus a rate per revenue vehicle‐mile. In addition, some of the  other costs vary by mileage, while others are fixed (do not vary by service level). In total,  $1,317,220 in expenses are fixed, while $1,685,443 vary with vehicle‐miles. Considering the  401,800 annual vehicle‐miles of service, the resulting cost model equation is as follows:     Annual SLO Transit Operating Costs = $4.19 X Revenue Vehicle‐Miles + $1,317,220      Cost Projections    The contract for transit services has recently been competitively procured, for the next four  years (with three potential subsequent one‐year extensions.)  The negotiated costs are lower  than previously expected, with only a 4 percent initial increase in operating costs and an  average of 3 percent increase over the length of the base (4 year) contract period.  This will  provide for modest cost increases over the five‐year length of this plan.    TABLE 12: SLO Transit 10‐Year Trend  in Service Levels, Ridership, Funding and Revenue Trends Year Revenue   Hours Revenue   Miles Peak  Vehicles Fares (1) State Sources Local  Sources Federal  Sources 2003 36,497 392,462 11 677,355 $2,209,884 $367,796 $1,035,491 $0 $806,597  2004 34,955 394,025 11 680,906 $2,314,354 $396,764 $1,004,949 $0 $912,641  2005 33,096 395,990 11 875,354 $2,789,045 $436,174 $1,788,915 $0 $563,956  2006 32,408 355,970 12 963,370 $2,607,989 $453,002 $1,640,858 $0 $514,128  2007 32,695 367,740 12 934,534 $2,998,320 $510,954 $1,516,100 $0 $473,000  2008 33,760 381,608 12 1,003,695 $3,380,541 $516,397 $1,598,100 $0 $770,000  2009 34,019 378,766 12 1,032,232 $2,753,165 $593,769 $881,396 $0 $1,278,000  2010 34,718 396,410 10 1,019,852 $2,826,292 $567,747 $876,445 $0 $1,382,100  2011 33,607 397,495 10 1,045,369 $2,889,389 $630,248 $1,014,942 $0 $1,244,200  2012 33,006 393,931 10 1,118,533 $3,278,607 $661,407 $1,342,617 $0 $1,274,563  2013 32,586 393,831 10 1,109,559 $3,309,674 $483,032 $1,391,750 $0 $1,431,719  10‐Yr ‐3,911 1,369 ‐1 432,204 1,099,790 115,236 356,259 0 625,122 Change ‐11% 0%‐9% 64% 50% 31% 34%‐‐78% Services Provided Unlinked  Ridership Operating  Cost  Operating Revenue Source: National  Transit Database.    Note  1: Includes Cal  Poly fees  for services. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 50 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 34 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan         The resulting operating cost forecasts, assuming no changes in the transit program other than  the marketing expansion discussed above, are shown in Table 14. This indicates that by  2021/22, SLO Transit ongoing annual costs will be approximately $732,000, or 24 percent,  above current levels.                 TABLE 13: SLO Transit FY 2015‐16 Operating Expenditures and Cost Model Annual Cost % of Total Cost Allocation Factor Contractor Operating Costs 1,170,443$       39.0% Revenue Veh‐Mile Contractor Management Fee/Insurance 982,020$          32.7% Fixed Subtotal: Contractor Sub Total:2,152,463$       71.7% City Administrative Salaries/Benefits 227,500$          7.6% Fixed Diesel Fuel 495,000$          16.5% Revenue Veh‐Mile Overhaul & Major Repairs 20,000$            0.7% Revenue Veh‐Mile Marketing  & Advertising 34,200$            1.1% Fixed Auditing  & Accounting 7,300$              0.2% Fixed Contract Services 42,600$            1.4% Fixed Print & Production 11,200$            0.4% Fixed Supplies 3,500$              0.1% Fixed Travel/Training/Association 8,900$              0.3% Fixed Total Operating Costs 3,002,663$       100.0% Subtotal Fixed 1,317,220$       Subtotal  Allocated by Revenue Vehicle‐Mile 1,685,443$       Annual Revenue Vehicle‐Miles 401,800            $4.19  per Revenue Vehicle‐Mile  Plus 1,317,220$        Operating Cost Model TABLE 14: SLO Transit Base Case Operating Cost Forecasts 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Contractor Costs $2,296,700 $2,342,600 $2,389,500 $2,461,200 $2,535,000 $2,611,100 Other Operating Costs $867,200 $884,500 $902,200 $929,300 $957,200 $985,900 Marketing Enhancements $107,300 $109,400 $111,600 $114,900 $118,300 $121,800 Total $3,271,200 $3,336,500 $3,403,300 $3,505,400 $3,610,500 $3,718,800 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 51  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 35   Existing Revenues    Table 15 presents existing revenues for SLO Transit capital improvements and operations, for  the current year and two prior years. This reflects the fact that revenues vary in order to fund  capital expenses. For the current fiscal year, 54 percent of funds come from federal sources (in  large part, the Federal Transit Administration’s 5307 program), 27 percent come from state and  regional sources, and 19 percent come from local sources.    The existing operating funding sources can be forecast for each of the SRTP analysis years, using  the financial planning assumptions presented in the SLOCOG 2014 Regional Transportation  Plan. The assumed rate of operating cost inflation was applied to the contract management  revenues, as well as the Cal Poly agreement revenues, as well as the surcharge for the Trolley  service. As shown in Table 16, over the coming five years these existing operating revenues  sources are expected to increase by approximately $1.0 Million over the five‐year Plan period.  The largest proportion (approximately $664,000) is forecast to consist of growth in Federal  funding (for both capital and operating needs). It should be noted that the current agreement  for Cal Poly funding of SLO Transit services terminates on June 30th, 2016; this forecast  assumes no significant changes in these revenues beyond the impacts of inflation.    Change in SLO Transit Performance    Table 17 presents the trends in key transit performance measures for the SLO Transit program:     Passenger‐trips per revenue vehicle‐hour of service have increased by an impressive 83  percent over the last ten years, and by 16 percent over the last three years.     Passenger‐trips per revenue vehicle‐mile of service have increased by 63 percent over the  last ten years and 10 percent over the last three years.     The operating costs per passenger‐trip has dropped by 9 percent over the last ten years,  but has increased by 8 percent over the last three years.    ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 52 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 36 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan            TABLE 15: SLO Transit Revenues Actual Budget Budget FEDERAL 5307 ‐ Operating $1,101,012 $1,205,100 $1,150,000 5307 ‐ Capital $36,861 $388,920 $668,160 5307 ‐ Preventive Vehicle Maint $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 5317 ‐ Planning $0 $10,000 $10,000 JARC  / New Freedom Grant $2,340 $0 $0 Congestion Mgmt/Air Quality $0 $1,102,000 $0 Sub Total: $1,300,213 $2,866,020 $1,988,160 STATE/REGIONAL TDA ‐ Local Transportation Fund $1,012,990 $1,694,393 $841,223 TDA ‐ State  Transit Assistance (STA) $38,724 $33,304 $33,304 TDA ‐ STA  Discretionary $143,574 $142,833 $142,833 TDA ‐ Prior Year Carryover $0 $247,200 $0 Proposition 1B $0 $25,689 $0 Prop 1B  Discretionary $0$0$0 California Emergency Mgmt Agency $45,498 $0 $0 Sub Total: $1,240,785 $2,143,419 $1,017,360 LOCAL CalPoly Agreement $403,104 $415,197 $427,653 Cash Fares $145,421 $140,463 $144,677 Bus Pass  Revenue $68,069 $59,410 $61,193 Downtown Ac cess  Pass $15,956 $20,000 $20,000 Prado Tokens $10,371 $5,000 $5,000 SLORTA Revenue Sharing $16,697 $20,460 $21,074 Trolley Surcharge $4,909 $6,790 $6,993 Sale  of  Surplus  Prop $9,763 $4,000 $4,000 Investment & Prop Revenues $10,264 $5,800 $5,800 Other $10,159 $4,561 $0 Sub Total: $694,714 $683,909 $698,685 TOTAL $3,235,713 $5,693,348 $3,704,205 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 53   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 37     TA B L E  16 :  SL O  Tr a n s i t  Re v e n u e  Fo r e c a s t s  (E x i s t i n g  So u r c e s ) 20 1 5 / 1 6 2 0 1 6 / 1 7 2 0 1 7 / 1 8 2 0 1 8 / 1 9 2 0 1 9 / 2 0 2 0 2 0 / 2 1 2 0 2 1 / 2 2 FE D E R A L 53 0 7  ‐   Op e r a t i n g $ 1 , 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 2 0 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 2 6 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 3 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 9 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 4 6 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 5 4 1 , 0 0 0 5 % N o t e 1 53 0 7  ‐   Ca p i t a l $ 6 6 8 , 1 6 0 $7 0 2 , 0 0 0 $ 7 3 7 , 0 0 0 $ 7 7 4 , 0 0 0 $ 8 1 3 , 0 0 0 $ 8 5 4 , 0 0 0 $ 8 9 7 , 0 0 0 5 % N o t e 1 53 0 7  ‐   Pr e v e n t i v e  Ve h i c l e  Ma i n t $ 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 $1 6 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 7 6 , 0 0 0 $ 1 8 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 9 4 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 4 , 0 0 0 $ 2 1 4 , 0 0 0 5 % N o t e 1 53 1 7  ‐   Pl a n n i n g $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Su b  To t a l :   $1 , 9 8 8 , 1 6 0 $ 2 , 0 7 8 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 1 8 1 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 2 9 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 4 0 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 5 2 6 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 6 5 2 , 0 0 0 ST A T E / R E G I O N A L TD A  ‐   Lo c a l   Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d $ 8 4 1 , 2 0 0 $8 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 9 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 9 4 6 , 0 0 0 $ 9 8 4 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 2 3 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 6 4 , 0 0 0 4 % N o t e 1 TD A  ‐   St a t e  Tr a n s i t  As s i s t a n c e  (S T A ) $ 3 3 , 3 0 0 $3 4 , 0 0 0 $ 3 5 , 0 0 0 $ 3 6 , 0 0 0 $ 3 7 , 0 0 0 $ 3 8 , 0 0 0 $ 3 9 , 0 0 0 2 % N o t e 1 TD A  ‐   ST A   Di s c r e t i o n a r y $ 1 4 2 , 8 0 0 $1 4 6 , 0 0 0 $ 1 4 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 2 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 6 1 , 0 0 0 2 % N o t e 1 Su b  To t a l :   $1 , 0 1 7 , 3 0 0 $ 1 , 0 5 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 9 4 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 3 4 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 7 6 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 2 1 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 2 6 4 , 0 0 0 LO C A L Ca l P o l y  Ag r e e m e n t $ 4 2 7 , 7 0 0 $4 5 2 , 0 0 0 $ 4 6 1 , 0 0 0 $ 4 7 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 7 9 , 0 0 0 $ 4 9 3 , 0 0 0 $ 5 0 8 , 0 0 0 Ca s h  Fa r e s $ 1 4 4 , 7 0 0 $1 4 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 4 , 0 0 0 $ 1 5 7 , 0 0 0 $ 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 6 3 , 0 0 0 2 % N o t e 1 Bu s  Pa s s  Re v e n u e $6 1 , 2 0 0 $6 2 , 0 0 0 $ 6 3 , 0 0 0 $ 6 4 , 0 0 0 $ 6 5 , 0 0 0 $ 6 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 7 , 0 0 0 2 % N o t e 1 Do w n t o w n  Ac c e s s  Pa s s $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 2 % N o t e 1 Pr a d o  To k e n s $ 5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 0 0 0 2 % N o t e 1 SL O R T A  R e v e n u e  Sh a r i n g $2 1 , 1 0 0 $2 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 2 % N o t e 1 Tr o l l e y  Su r c h a r g e $ 7 , 0 0 0 $7 , 0 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 Sa l e  of  Su r p l u s  Pr o p $ 4 , 0 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 0 0 In v e s t m e n t  & Pr o p  Re v e n u e s $5 , 8 0 0 $6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 , 0 0 0 $ 6 , 0 0 0 Su b  To t a l :   $6 9 6 , 5 0 0 $ 7 2 6 , 0 0 0 $ 7 3 9 , 0 0 0 $ 7 5 2 , 0 0 0 $ 7 6 5 , 0 0 0 $ 7 8 3 , 0 0 0 $ 8 0 2 , 0 0 0 TO T A L $3 , 7 0 1 , 9 6 0 $ 3 , 8 5 9 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 0 1 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 1 7 6 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 3 4 6 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 5 2 8 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 7 1 8 , 0 0 0 1.  SL O C O G  20 1 4  Re g i o n a l  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n   Pl a n ,  Re a s o n a b l y  Ex p e c t e d   Sc e n a r i o No t e 2 No t e 2 An n u a l  Gr o w t h   Ra t e 2.  In c r e a s e d  to  ma t c h  as s u m e d  in f l a t i o n  ra t e :  5. 7 %  in  fi r s t  ye a r  (g i v e n  cu r r e n t l y  ex p e c t e d  in c r e a s e s  in  sp e c i f i c  op e r a t i n g  co s t s ) ,  wi t h  ra t e s  in  fo l l o w i n g  ye a r s   co n s i s t e n t  wi t h  RT P  Re a s o n a b l y  Ex p e c t e d  Sc e n a r i o  (2  pe r c e n t  th r o u g h  20 1 9 ,  an d  3%  st a r t i n g  in  20 2 0 . ------ ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 54 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 38 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan            Subtracting fare revenues from costs to identify operating subsidy, the subsidy per  passenger‐trip has similarly dropped by 6 percent over the ten‐year period, but increased  by 15 percent over the last three years.     The simple farebox return ratio has declined by 12 percent over ten years and 27 percent in  the last three years.     Overall, these figures reflect improved performance over the last ten years, though  increasing costs tied with relatively flat ridership growth over the last few years have  started to reduce the financially‐based performance.     Service Standards Evaluation    The City has adopted a set of service standards, using the following categories: service  coverage, patron convenience, fiscal condition, and passenger comfort. Service coverage  Year Psgrs per  Rev. Veh ‐ Hr Psgrs per  Rev. Veh ‐ Mi Operating  Cost  per  Psgr‐Trip Operating  Subsidy  per Psgr‐ Trip Farebox  Ratio (1) 2003 18.6 1.73 $3.26 $2.72 16.6% 2004 19.5 1.73 $3.40 $2.82 17.1% 2005 26.4 2.21 $3.19 $2.69 15.6% 2006 29.7 2.71 $2.71 $2.24 17.4% 2007 28.6 2.54 $3.21 $2.66 17.0% 2008 29.7 2.63 $3.37 $2.85 15.3% 2009 30.3 2.73 $2.67 $2.09 21.6% 2010 29.4 2.57 $2.77 $2.21 20.1% 2011 31.1 2.63 $2.76 $2.16 21.8% 2012 33.9 2.84 $2.93 $2.34 20.2% 2013 34.1 2.82 $2.98 $2.55 14.6% Change: Last 3  Years 16%10%8% 15%‐27% Change: Last 10  Years 83% 63%‐9%‐6%‐12% Note  1: Simple  calculation of fare  revenues  divided by operating cost. Source: National  Transit Database TABLE 17: SLO Transit  10‐Year Service Levels, Ridership, Funding  and Revenue ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 55  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 39   standards identify residential area availability, major activity center availability, frequency, span  and directness. Patron convenience standards include guidance on speed, loading, bus stop  spacing, dependability, and road call ratio. Standards relating to the fiscal condition of the  system include fare structure, farebox recovery, productivity, and cost effectiveness and  efficiency.    Service Coverage    Service coverage includes standards that address residential area availability, major activity  center availability, frequency, span, and directness. Each standard can be measured to  determine service coverage of the transportation system. These standards are listed in Table  18, SLO Transit Service Coverage Indicators. As discussed in Chapter 2, coverage is very high,  with 99 percent of the residents in the area within a quarter‐mile walk of a bus route.   Over the past 10 years, SLO Transit has been able to maintain service coverage within the City.  Residential area and major activity center availability has provided more people with access to  use the services. While operating within relatively the same revenue hours, improvements to  frequency, span and directness have also allowed for more efficient service quality.     Patron Convenience    Standards including speed, loading, bus stop spacing, dependability, and road call ratio  contribute as indicators to patron convenience. These standards are outlined in Table 19, SLO  Transit Patron Convenience Indicators. Patron Convenience addresses speed, loading, bus stop  ratio, dependability, and road call ratio. All of these indicators are evaluated annually for  improvement. These indicators contribute toward the development of efficient route design  supporting increased ridership. Annual trends cannot be derived; however the annual increase  in ridership shows SLO Transit routes support patron convenience due to the general increase  in ridership.     Fiscal Condition    The fiscal condition of the SLO Transit system is assessed by standards on fare structure,  farebox recovery, productivity, cost effectiveness and efficiency. All standards are presented in  Table 20. As operating cost increased over the past 10 years, farebox revenue also increased  with the exception of 2013. Farebox revenue is able to keep up with costs due to ridership  increases.     Passenger Comfort    Passenger comfort is a high priority to maintain ridership and a successful service. Quality  standards for waiting shelters, bus stop signs, revenue equipment, and public information are  listed in Table 21, Passenger Comfort Indicators. Based off ridership surveys, passengers have  rated their experience using the SLO Transit services to be comfortable and efficient.  Passengers rank vehicle cleanliness as very high. Waiting shelters, bus stop signs revenue  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 56 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 40 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     equipment and public access to information on the transit systems is evaluated annually and  improvements are made as needed.       Table 18: SLO Transit Service Coverage Indicators SLO Transit Performance Relation to Standard Residential Area Availability 90% of population within ¼ mile of bus route The 2009 Short Range Transportation Plan proposed these standards which were adopted by the City. Since these standards were adopted, routes have been adjusted to meet these standards within the City. Employment concentrations of 200 or more employees Health Centers Middle and High Schools Colleges/Universities Shopping Centers over 25 stores or 100,000 SF of retail space Social Service/Government Center Frequency 30 minute peak 60 minute off-peak Span 5 AM to 10 PM on weekdays 6Am to 7 PM on weekends Directness Maximum 25% of passengers transferring Based on survey, 7.2% passengers transferred getting to the bus and 9.3% will transfer. At a total of 16.5% transferring, this guideline is met Guideline is being met Standard Routes 1, 2, and 3 do not meet the peak frequency. Routes 4, 5, 6 A/B and the Old SLO Trolley meet the peak frequency timeframe. Routes 1, 2, and 3 do not meet the peak frequency. Routes 4, 5, 6 A/B and the Old SLO Trolley meet the peak frequency timeframe. None of the routes start at 5 AM during weekdays or earlier than 8 AM on weekends. Route 6 A/B is the only one that ends after 10 PM on the weekdays. During the weekends the Old SLO Trolley is the only line available after 7 PM. SLO Transit is not meeting service needs between the times specified by these service standards for weekday and weekend route services. The SLO Transit fixed routes serve the major activity centers within the city. For the employment centers south of Tank Farm Road, the area is covered by the RTA routes. According to the last STRP, SLO Transit fixed routes serve the majority of major trip generators within the city. Major trip generators south of Tank Farm Road are not served by SLO Transit, but are served by RTA routes. Major Activity Center Availability ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 57   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 41     TABLE 19: SLO Transit Patron Convenience Indicators SLO Transit  Performance Relation to Standard Speed Regular routes  maximum  of  15 MPH All  routes  operate on  average under the  maximum speed of 14 MPH. The speed of  fleet  vehicles  on average  does  not exceed the 15  MPH  standard. Loading Per detailed data  shown in  Appendix D, load is above  45 on following runs: Route 4: 710 am, 810 am,  910 am, 1110 am, 240 pm,  620 pm Route 5: 710 am, 750 am,  850 am, 920 am, 1150 am,  550 am Route 6a: 940, 1110, 1140,  310, 340, 610, 810 Route 6b 732 am Bus Stop Spacing 5 to 7 blocks  per mile in  core (every other block) Fring e  4 to 5 per mile, as   needed based on land  uses Dependability No missed trips 95% on‐time  service (0 to  5 minutes  later) Road Call Ratio 4,000 to 6,000 miles per  road call During FY2014, the road call  total  was  69 calls  total  over  393,831 revenue miles. This   is approximately, 5,707  miles per call.  SLO  Transit met the  road call ratio during   FY14. Standard Note 1: This  table  provides  recommended  route  spacing based upon population density and the  proportion of households   without autos. It ranges  from ¼ mile spacing in the  densest areas with highest non‐auto households  up to 1 mile  spacing.  Source: San Luis  Obispo Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Final  Report, Urbitran  Associates, 2009. Pee r data updated to  FY13. 25% standees for short  periods  acceptable (a load  of  45 passengers  except  on trips  operated with the  double  deck bus) Very few trips  have  standing  loads overall,  many  of the  trips  that  have  a passenger load  of over 45 passengers   are on vehicle trips  that  utilize the double deck  bus. All  routes  ha ve bus  stops  spaced appropriately to  meet the  mileage standard.  Look at number of  stops per  route  divided by mileage   (likely meeting  guideline) All  routes  have bus   stops spaced  appropriately to meet  the mileage standard. During December 2014 and  January 2015, 98.0% of  runs   were  on time, 1.4% were   late, and 0.6% we re early.  Worst route (Rt 4) was  96%  on time All routes  meet on‐time  standard.  Data not  available on missed  trips. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 58 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 42 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan         SLO Transit Performance Relation to Standard Fare Structure Fare Structure – Qualitative criteria Fare policy does have a number of cash and pass options Sufficient pass types are offered Farebox Recovery – Significantly alter routes less than 60% of system group average (22% is average) Review and modify routes between 60% and 80% system group Significantly alter routes less than 60% of system group average (1.9 passengers per mile and 24 passengers per hour) Review and modify routes between 60% and 80% of group average Significantly alter routes more than 140% of system group average cost per passenger ($3.37) of SLO system average Review and modify routes between 120% and 140% average All routes meet the standard Table 20: Fiscal Condition Indicators Standard Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency Productivity Farebox Recovery Routes 1, 2, 4, and 5 are close to meeting the average for farebox recovery but remain less than 60% of average. All costs per passenger for fixed routes are less than the SLO system average, with the exception of Route 1 which is $3.73. Route 1 and the Old SLO Trolley have productivity less than system average. Routes 1, 2, 4, and 5 are close to meeting this standard but fall short and should be reviewed and modified to meet this standard. Route 1 and the Old SLO Trolley should be reviewed and modified to meet this standard. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 59  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 43       Findings    Most service standards are met, with improvements to service coverage, patron convenience,  fiscal condition, and passenger comfort. High passenger loads have been largely addressed  through the operation of higher capacity equipment. The general increase in ridership and  operational efficiencies have improved the management of the system. In 2010, the peak  vehicles amount dropped from 12 to 10. However, there was still a general increase in  operational cost, ridership and fare revenue. SLO Transit was able to operate fewer vehicles  reducing maintenance and operational costs while still serving more passengers.     SLO Transit Performance Relation to Standard Waiting Shelters 25 or more boardings Not all bus stops with waiting shelters take on 25 or more boardings. The main exception is the Downtown Transit Center Stop which takes on more than 25 boardings. Waiting shelters should accommodate 25 or more boardings; however most stops with waiting shelters do not have 25 boardings. Bus stop shelters should continue to be maintained to support additional service standards including community perception of the system. Bus Stop Signs Denote SLO Transit, contact information, and route Most signs denote SLO Transit, contact information, and route. Standard is met Revenue Equipment Clean and good condition Complaint log Data not available Public Information Timetable, maps, advertising Timetables, route maps and route advertisements are available online. Routes are advertised with bus stop signs and buses traveling on the routes. This standard is met with clear timetables and maps available on the City website. The service is advertised with bus stop signs and buses traveling on heavily trafficked routes. Standard Table 21: Passenger Comfort Indicators ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 60 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 44 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     SLO Transit Staff Input    Consultant staff met with a group of SLO Transit contractor staff, including drivers and  dispatchers. Key comments and input generated through this meeting consist of the following:     Growth in homeless ridership can create conflicts, particularly regarding amount of stuff  carried onboard.     Worst times for on‐time performance are around 10 AM, 2 PM and 5 PM. 4a has particular  problems 9AM to 11AM, 5b has problems right after lunch, and Route 3 has problems when  wheelchair boarding are high. Routes 4 (particularly 4A) and 5 (particularly 5B) are the  greatest problems to operate on time. The greatest areas of delays are Auto Parkway and  Irish Hills, and these traffic delays are getting worse. Keep Route 4 off of Descanso, Auto  Parkway and Bouchon?     Growth in wheelchair boardings has also reduced running speeds. There have been up to  five wheelchairs on an individual run, and instances of wheelchair users being left at the  stop due to lack of tie‐down capacity. Route 3 has the greatest wheelchair use, as well as a  lot of walkers.     The double decker bus also adds up to 15 minutes to the running time, due to additional  passenger boarding time.     Bike rack use has been growing, and bikers (cyclists) are sometimes left at the curb. Need  for more bike rack space?     Operations around the Cal Poly campus are relatively good. There has not been much  overflow from the reduction in RTA service to the campus. Much of the student ridership is  along Foothill and Grand, and in downtown, which can result in overcrowding on the buses.     Route 4 is impacted by the narrowness of Santa Rosa Street and Bouchon Street – could be  moved back to Pismo, or shifted to follow Route 5 past the train station.     The narrowness of Patricia Drive is a problem on Routes 1 and 6, and Route 1 is also  impacted by the narrowness of Augusta Street.  The limited street width creates delays to  the vehicles, and can result in safety concerns.     The Route 2 / Route 3 bus swap is confusing – can this be eliminated?     The existing Transit Center needs to have four parking spaces for the four shift relief  vehicles (rather than the current two), and passengers sometimes have trouble  boarding/deboarding due to the slope.    ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 61  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 45    Many bus stops need extended red curb areas to allow the space for buses to pull in.     Double decker bus should not be used on Route 4/5 along LOVR – too much wear and tear  for so much service.     Recommendations for service changes  o Need for service to the airport  o Operate Route 1 on weekends  o Some people want later service on weekends     Recommendations regarding specific stops and route segments:  o Stops along Santa Rosa Street between the Transit Center and Murray – get requests for  stops, but difficult to serve  o Madonna and Oceanaire is bad location for stop – hard to get back into lane ‐‐ move  stop back closer to Laguna Lake bridge  o Prefumo Canyon loop can be time sucker because not a lot of ridership   o Tank Farm Road on Route 3 is dangerous – serves wrong side of road  o Mobile home park ‐‐ what about deviated call‐ahead?   o South Street has too many stops, could make more efficient  o LOVR may have two stops that are too close – could get rid of one   o Routes 1 and 3 could benefit from a bus bay at hospital – Johnson/Lizzie   o Route 2 stop at DMV is not used     City should do a better job of letting transit staff know about construction detours, etc.,  which causes operational problems    SLO Transit Triennial Performance Audit    The most recent TDA Triennial Performance Audit was completed in May of 2014. It found the  City’s transit program to be in compliance with all regulations, with the minor exception that  not all City staffers that provide limited support to the transit program (such as the Finance  Director) were fully accounted for in the calculation of full time equivalent personnel count.  Service standards were found to be largely met, except regarding on‐time performance on  some routes as well as regarding the farebox return ratio (which attained TDA required  minimum levels but did not attain the standard identified in the previous SRTP).  Recommendations of the Auditor were as follows:     The City of San Luis Obispo should collect paid work hour information and report Employee  Full‐Time Equivalents (FTEs) annually, in accordance with PUC requirements.      Work with Cal Poly to implement a University “U” Pass Program in FY 2016/17, replacing the  current subsidy agreement with a more stable and reliable source of funding.    ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 62 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 46 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan      As part of the next SRTP process, update and refine performance standards for SLO Transit  and explore opportunities to coordinate service with RTA routes. (This is consistent with a  parallel recommendation in the RTA audit.)     Establish more formal standards around complaints / accidents and include a category in  the City’s database for complaint verification.    The City is currently in the process of addressing these recommendations.    Federal Transit Administration Triennial Review    The Federal Transit Administration’s triennial audit for SLO Transit was last completed in  February, 2014. Among the 18 subject areas, the audit process resulted in findings of  deficiencies in four areas:     Procurement – A cost/price analysis was not conducted for the purchase of three buses.     Planning/Program of Projects – A statement regarding the availability of the Program of  Projects was not included in public notices.      Title VI – The City had not established system‐wide service standards and policies regarding  non‐discrimination.     Equal Employment Opportunity – The City was found to not have a copy of the transit  service contractor’s Equal Employment Opportunity Plan, or evidence that the plan met FTA  requirements.    Subsequent to the audit, the City has been working to address these issues.    Onboard Surveys    The following section presents a summary of the main findings from the onboard surveys. Full  results, including customer comments, are displayed in Appendix A.    SLO Transit Fixed Routes – Onboard Survey    The onboard surveys were conducted over the course of three midweek days, Tuesday through  Thursday, between March 3, 2015, and March 5, 2015. All runs were surveyed over multiple  days, resulting in 1,573 valid survey responses. Consistent with ridership levels, the routes with  the most rider responses were Routes 4, 5 and 6. Key findings of this survey are as follows:     Nearly three‐quarters of the riders (71 percent) were travelling roundtrip.     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 63   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 47    92 percent walked to the bus from their origin and 88 percent will walk from the bus to  their destination. More than half the riders were walking to and from the bus between one  and two blocks away. Less than 5 percent claimed to walk more than six blocks.      Between 5 and 6 percent of the riders were transferring to and from other SLO Transit  routes and 2 percent were transferring to and from Regional Transit Authority (RTA) routes.  Among the SLO routes, transfers were evenly spread with slightly more riders transferring  between Routes 5 and 6. Routes 9 and 12 were the most common RTA routes that SLO  Transit passengers transferred to or from.      The most popular trip generator was Cal Poly, with one‐quarter of the riders boarding there,  mostly at the Kennedy Library, and 41 percent de‐boarding at Cal Poly. The Downtown  Transit Center followed as the next most popular origin and destination with 8.5 percent  boarding there and 14 percent de‐boarding. Cuesta was the third most common stop, and  specifically, the Cuesta and Highland intersection was cited the most often. More popular  streets and intersections are displayed below in Table 22.     Riders were primarily traveling for school, with 64 percent affirming this, followed by  commuting to work (15 percent).     Asked how long they had been using the SLO Transit services, 39.2 percent indicated less  than 1 year, 25.5 percent 1 to 2 years, 23.9 percent 3 to 4 years, and 11.7 percent 5 or more  years     Those than had been riding SLO Transit less than one year were asked how they would have  completed their trip before using the service. The largest proportion (40.2 percent)  indicated they would have walked, 27.4 percent would have bicycled, 22.7 percent would  have driven, while 17.3 percent would have been a passenger in a car.    Respondents were asked to rate the SLO Transit service on a scale of “Very Poor” to  “Excellent.” The “On‐Time” option received the lowest rating, though two‐thirds of the  riders still rated it a “Good” or “Excellent.” Results are displayed in Figure 16. When asked  to rate their overall experience with SLO Transit, a very large majority of riders gave either  an “Excellent” response (32 percent) and an additional 62 percent gave a “Good” response.  This indicates that, despite some specific issues, the large majority of riders have a high  opinion of the service. The lowest overall score was indicated for on‐time performance,  though even in this category 68 percent of passengers indicted either “Good” or  “Excellent.”     At the time of the survey, a majority of the riders were Cal Poly students, staff or faculty (81  percent) and 4 percent were Cuesta students, staff or faculty (some of which attended both  institutions).     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 64 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 48 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan       1494 skipped question 79 Street Intersection/Place Response Count Response Percent City/Town Response Count Response Percent SLO 1452 97.2%Other Augusta 14 San Jose 1 0.1% Broad 27 Paso Robles 1 0.1% Cal Poly 374 25.0%Atascadero 8 0.5% Cal Poly Library 219 Santa Maria 2 0.1% Cal Poly PAC 59 Arroyo Grande 1 0.1% California 13 Los Osos 3 0.2% Casa 25 Morro Bay 4 0.3% Casa and Murray 18 Pismo Beach 2 0.1% Cuesta 39 Cambria 2 0.1% Cuesta and Highland 28 Templeton 1 0.1% Downtown Transit Center 77 Foothill 58 Left Blank 17 1.1% Grand 45 Grand and Abbott 16 Grand and Mill 13 Highland 14 Higuera 37 Higuera and Suburban 8 Johnson 33 LOVR 58 LOVR and Madonna 28 LOVR and Oceanaire 11 Madonna 27 Madonna and Oceanaire 10 Mill 53 Mill and Osos 6 Mill and Pepper 8 Mill and Santa Rosa 13 Orcutt 14 Patricia 26 Phillips 14 Phillips and Pepper 9 Prado 15 Ramona 64 Ramona and Palomar 34 Ramona and Tassajara 19 Santa Rosa 40 South 22 Tassajara 22 Respondents coming from SLO answered question Respondents Coming from Cities other than SLO TABLE 22: Location Riders Are Coming From Is this home? Yes No ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 65   SLO Transit       The r perce    More trip; h and d    Less t riders    The r   Short Range Tra respondents ent) or at lea e than half o however, m do have a dr than 5 perce s have a com riders’ prima  Bus dr  Bus st ansit Plan   indicated th ast 3‐4 days  f the riders  ost of them  iver’s license ent indicated mputer and/ ary source fo river   top   hey typically per week (3 (56 percent) have one or e (77 percen d they have  or a smartph or transit info  10  16 y ride the bu 32 percent).  ) did not hav r more vehic nt).   no internet  hone.   ormation va 0.7 perc 6.8 perc LSC Transpo s 5 or more  ve a vehicle  cles within th access, whil aried with th cent  cent  rtation Consulta days during available at  heir househ le three‐qua e following  ants, Inc. / AECO P g the week (4 the time of  old (78 perc arters of the  percentages OM, Inc.  Page 49     47  the  cent)  s:  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 66 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 50 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan      Agency website    16.3 percent   Printed guide / schedule 26.8 percent   Facebook       0.7 percent   Real time info    35.4 percent   Google Maps    13.8 percent     Since the riders are primarily Cal Poly students, it’s no surprise that the age range was most  often cited between 18‐24 years of age with 70 percent indicating this range.      Riders are in a wide range of economic classes. While 36 percent have a total family income  of less than $15,000 per year, 21 percent have total family income exceeding $100,000 per  year.    Finally, riders were asked to respond to the question “What single most important  improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit”. A total of 829 persons provided a response  (some provided several responses). The responses were categorized into major categories. A  review of these responses indicates the following:     The largest number of comments (218) was regarding the hours or days of service. Of these,  89 were for expanded “weekend” service, 19 for expanded service on Sundays, and 5 for  expanded service on Saturdays. A total of 84 requests were for later service, along with 40  for extended or longer service hours, and 14 requests for earlier service.     A high number of comments were also (144) made regarding service frequency or run  times. A very common request was simply for more buses, to address overcrowding  problems at the beginning and end of the academic day on weekdays. In addition, there  were 15 requests for additional frequency in the evenings, and 11 for additional weekend  frequency.     The need for improvements in on‐time performance was cited by 121 respondents. The  large majority indicated that buses were late or unreliable, though five complained of buses  departing stops early.     Comments regarding buses and bus amenities totaled 151. Of these, 48 asked for  additional seating, including the use of more double decker buses (along with one request  for a triple decker bus). There were a total of 16 requests for improved Wi‐Fi, and 9  requests for improved cleanliness.     Only nine persons commented about the existing bus stops. Of these, four identified the  need for improved street lighting to improve conditions while waiting at night, and two  requested a shelter at Laurel/August.    ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 67   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 51    Routing and stop location changes were cited by 70 respondents. Many were simple  requests for additional routes or stop locations. Five requests for service to the airport were  made, along with five requests to convert one‐way loops into two‐way service. The only  specific location that garnered multiple requests for service was Poly Canyon Village.     13 persons commented on passenger issues (including dogs), including baggage blocking  the aisle, cell phone use, and hygiene issues.     155 comments were categorized in the other category. Of these 24 were regarding the  importance of the transit app, including requests to maintain or improve the app. There  were also 21 complaints of unfriendly drivers, as well as several comments on the practice  of pulling buses off the route that are running very late (sometimes requiring passengers to  wait for a later bus).     In addition, 22 respondents provided accolades about their satisfaction with the transit service.    Comparison with 2007 SLO Transit Onboard Survey Results    Many of the same data were collected in the previous survey conducted of SLO Transit  passengers in 2007. A total of 776 persons participated in the previous survey. A review of this  data indicates the following key changes or trends:     The proportion of riders associated with Cal Poly has stayed relatively constant – a 2007  figure of 81 percent versus a 2015 figure of 82 percent. As in 2007, the large majority of  these are students.     The age distribution of passengers remained similar between the two surveys. 62 percent of  the passengers in 2007 were ages 19 to 24, while 70 percent of the passengers in 2015 were  ages 18 to 24. The number age 60 or above also remained similar.      The proportion of passengers with household income exceeding $75,000 per year increased  from 21 percent in 2007 to 34 percent in 2015.     The proportion of passengers without a car available for the trip dropped from 61 percent  to 56 percent, but the proportion without a driver’s license increased from 15 percent to 23  percent.     The mode used to access the bus changed little between 2007 and 2015. The proportion  accessing by walking increased by 4 percent and the proportion transferring from another  SLO bus increased by 1 percent, while the proportion driving to the stop dropped.     The proportion of passengers that are regular riders remained constant, with 79 percent in  both surveys riding at least 3 days per week.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 68 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 52 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan        Long‐term riders have increased: while 27 percent of those surveyed had ridden at least 3  years in 2007, this figure increased to 36 percent in 2015.     Passenger trip purpose remained relatively unchanged: while the proportion traveling for  school dropped from 67 percent to 64 percent, the proportion traveling for work increased  from 9 percent to 15 percent.     Service ratings are not directly comparable between the two surveys: while the 2007 survey  used a six‐category system (poor, fair, good, very good and excellent), the 2015 survey used  a five‐category system (very poor, poor, fair, good, and excellent). In both surveys, on‐time  performance had the greatest proportion of the lowest responses, with 3 percent indicating  “poor” in 2007 and a total of 7 percent indicating “poor” or “very poor” in 2015. Regarding  the overall rating, 89 percent indicated “good,” “very good” or “excellent” in 2007,  compared with 94 percent indicating “good” or “excellent” in 2015.    The comments received in both surveys were similar, with a focus on bus overcrowding (need  for more frequency and/or larger buses), on‐time performance, and the need for expanded  hours of service.    Online Survey    In addition to the onboard surveys, an online survey was offered through Survey Monkey  during the month of March. The survey was designed to assess the primary bus service used by  each rider and consider the transit patterns of those riders as well as their opinion of that  specific service. Out of the 104 survey participants, there were 46 respondents or 44 percent  who selected SLO Transit as their primary bus service. Key findings of this survey are as follows:     The highest proportion (27 percent) of online respondents had been using SLO Transit for  five or more years.     44 percent of respondents only use the service occasionally or less than 5 times per month.      The respondents were asked to indicate the mode of travel they used prior to using SLO  Transit and they were permitted to select more than one answer.      Customers were requested to rate the SLO Transit service on a scale of “Very Poor” to  “Excellent”. The lowest rated service was “Hours of Service,” followed by “Service  Frequency.” The highest rated service was “Value Received for Fare,” followed by “Safety  Performance.”      ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 69   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 53    Asked to indicate their reasons for using SLO Transit, the most common response was “Low  Cost,” followed by “Convenience” and “Good for Environment.” Only one person claimed  they do not have a driver’s license.      Customers were asked to select various ways that they believe would make SLO Transit  more convenient. Operating later on weekdays was the most popular response (70.7  percent) followed by operating later on weekends (61.0 percent), more frequent weekend  schedules (46 percent), and consistent schedules between Saturday and Sunday (42  percent).     Detailed response data is available by contacting SLO Transit.    OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS SERVING SAN LUIS OBISPO    San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority    The RTA is a Joint Powers Authority that connects and serves various communities within San  Luis Obispo County and nearby cities. In addition to operating regional fixed route service, the  Runabout program operated by the RTA provides paratransit services for all fixed route services  throughout the region, including within the city of San Luis Obispo. RTA’s service area includes  all of San Luis Obispo County and extends into the northern part of Santa Barbara County  (Santa Maria).    Fixed Route Service    Four RTA fixed routes serve San Luis Obispo, as summarized in Table 23 and discussed below:          Route 9 is a fixed‐route service that serves the northern portion of the county from San Luis  Obispo to San Miguel along the US 101 corridor. Route 9 provides hourly headways on  weekdays, with skip‐stop Express trips augmenting the hourly runs during peak travel  TABLE 23: RTA Service Span and Frequency Route Span Frequency  (Minutes)Span Frequency   (Minutes)Span Frequency   (Minutes) Route 95 : 3 0 AM – 9:51 PM 60 6:56 AM – 9:03 PM 180 7:56 AM – 7:03 PM 240 Route 10 5:45 AM – 9:43 AM 60 7:14 AM – 8:43 PM 180 8:14 AM – 6:43 PM 240 Route 12 6:23 AM ‐10:03 PM 60 7:23 AM – 8:28 PM 105 8:23 AM – 6:28 PM 105 Route 14 7:42 AM – 3:45 PM 60 Source: RTA  timetables Note: For peak travel periods, all fixed routes operate additional runs at an increased frequency during the weekdays to  accommodate  passenger demand and specific employee shift times at major activity centers. Weekday Saturday Sunday No Service No Service ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 70 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 54 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     periods. A total of 21 runs are operated in each direction on weekdays, along with 5 on  Saturdays and 3 on Sundays. On weekdays, 4 southbound runs are operated as Express  runs, along with 2 northbound runs. While all runs serve the Government Center passenger  facility at Osos and Palm, some peak‐period runs also serve the Cal Poly campus (and stops  along the way).      Route 10 is a fixed‐route service operating in the southern portion of the county from San  Luis Obispo to Santa Maria. Route 10 also provides hourly headways on weekdays, with  skip‐stop Express trips augmenting the hourly runs during peak travel periods. This service is  offered 7 days a week with limited service on the weekends, and it makes stops in San Luis  Obispo, Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, Nipomo and Santa Maria. Within San Luis Obispo,  Route 10 serves three stops in each direction along the South Higuera corridor, as well as  Marsh/Broad and the Government Center transfer point. Several runs each weekday also  directly serve the Cal Poly Library stop.     Route 12 provides hourly service between San Luis Obispo, Cuesta College, Morro Bay and  Los Osos. At Morro Bay, transfers are available to both Morro Bay Transit as well as RTA  Route 15 serving the north coast corridor as far as Hearst Castle. This service runs 7 days a  week with limited service on the weekends. A total of 18 runs per weekday provide hourly  service between 6:23 AM and 10:03 PM, with some additional runs at peak times. Saturday  service consists of 10 runs, while 8 runs are operated on Sundays. In addition to the  Government Center transfer point, this route also serves two stops along Santa Rosa  Avenue within San Luis Obispo.      Route 14 augments Route 12 service, primarily serving travelers between Cuesta College  and San Luis Obispo. There are three stops in San Luis Obispo: at Government Center in  downtown San Luis Obispo, at the Stenner Glen apartment complex on Santa Rosa Street,  and at Cuesta College. This is essentially a tripper route for Cuesta College students and  staff which operates solely during the fall and spring sessions. This service is provided only  on weekdays, with seven runs per day in each direction. Two “call in” stops (at the  California Men’s Colony and at the SLO County Jail / Corp‐Yard complex) are served along  with the scheduled stops.    Table 24 presents ridership by route and day. As indicated, Route 10 generates the most  ridership of the routes serving San Luis Obispo, followed closely by Route 9.     RTA and SLO Transit Transfer Activity    An important factor regarding how well the transit systems perform as a regional network is  the patterns of transfer activity at the key downtown San Luis Obispo transit hub, location  along two blocks of Osos Street. Personnel surveyed passengers boarding both RTA and SLO  buses over the course of a weekday to identify whether each passenger transferred from  another bus and, if so, which route they transferred from. Detailed results are presented in  Appendix B. Key findings are as follows:  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 71   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 55          A total of 242 transfers to SLO Transit and 261 transfers to RTA buses were recorded over  the course of the day.     Of passengers transferring to SLO Transit buses, the majority (74.7 percent) transferred  from other SLO Transit buses, while 25.3 percent transferred from RTA buses. Within the  SLO system, the largest proportion was between Routes 2 and 3 (29.4 percent of all SLO  transferring passengers, or 39.0 percent of all transfers within the SLO Transit system). Of  those transferring from RTA buses, the proportions were relatively consistent between  those coming from Route 9 (8.7 percent of all SLO Transit transfers), Route 10 (7.9 percent),  and Route 12 (7.9 percent), with only 0.8 percent transferring from Route 14.     Of passengers transferring to RTA buses, 76.4 percent were coming from other RTA buses  while 23.4 percent were coming from SLO Transit buses. Within the RTA system, the largest  proportions of transfers were between Routes 10 and 12 (28.7 percent of all transfers) and  between Routes 9 and 12 (26.8 percent of all transfers). Coming from SLO Transit, 7.3  percent of all RTA transferring boardings were from Route 2, followed by 6.5 percent from  Route 3.    These figures reflect the importance of transfers to overall passenger use of the two systems,  totaling approximately 7 percent of daily SLO Transit ridership and 10 percent of RTA ridership.  Transfers are particularly important to the effectiveness of RTA Route 12, as approximately 23  percent of passengers transfer to or from Route 12 buses at Government Center. These figures  can also be used to help design a new transit center, by designating bus bays to reduce walk  distance between buses with high levels of transfer activity.       TABLE 24: Ridership on RTA Routes Serving San Luis Obispo Route Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual Route 9 901 259 148 252,744 Route 10 962 287 158 270,562 Route 12 699 180 110 194,884 Route 14 84 No Service No Service 21,559 Route 15 71 48 30 22,249 TOTAL RTA 2718 774 446 761,998 Source: RTA Historical Ridership and Miles, Fiscal Year 2013‐14  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 72 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 56 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     Runabout Service    Runabout is the San Luis Obispo County‐wide ADA complementary paratransit service operated  by RTA. Each vehicle that supports this service is wheelchair lift‐equipped. Runabout provides  curb‐to‐curb service for all riders through reservations made in advance (riders can request  door‐to‐door service if their disability makes curb‐to‐curb service infeasible).     Pick up times are coordinated in advance and services are available within a set time‐frame.  Service is provided within ¾‐mile of all fixed routes. Runabout meets the ADA complementary  paratransit requirements of the fixed routes provided by SLO Transit as well as the other fixed  route services in the county. Runabout drivers are not authorized to enter any personal  residence to assist riders. This service is available only to those riders who meet criteria defined  by the ADA and deemed eligible through an established ADA certification process managed by  RTA.    Runabout services can be summarized as follows:     Vehicle‐hours total 37,838 per year. Of these 30,456 were with passengers, 6,722 were in‐ service but without passengers on board, and 660 were out of service hours.     “No shows” (passengers that are not available for pickup) are 2 percent of all reservations.     Late cancellations represent 5 percent of total reservations.     The service carries 1.47 passenger‐trips per vehicle‐hour of service.     Up to 12 to 15 vehicles are in operation on weekdays (with the greatest number on Fridays),  and 6 on Saturdays and Sundays.      Overall 30.3 percent of riders are subscription rides.      A review of Runabout Routematch data for a two month period (October and November  2014) indicated that, overall, 94.2 percent of trips were served on‐time (0 to 5 minutes  late), 4.7 percent were served early, while 1.1 percent were served more than 5 minutes  late. Of these late trips, on average the service arrive 12 minutes behind the scheduled  time. Runabout had zero missed‐trips during the evaluation period.     A review of Runabout passenger‐trip origin and destination data for a full year indicated  that 34.8 percent of all Runabout trips have both an origin and destination within San Luis  Obispo. An additional 25.6 percent of passenger‐trips are generated by riders traveling to or  from San Luis Obispo from other communities. Overall, 60.4 percent of all passenger‐trips  have one or both trip‐ends in San Luis Obispo. Of the trips in or out of San Luis Obispo, the  preponderance (16.5 percent) are to/from the south (the Five Cities area).  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 73   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 57     Fare Structure    RTA fixed route cash fares are based on distance traveled with base fares ranging between  $1.50 and $3.00 on a single route. In lieu of free transfers, RTA offers a Regional Day Pass for  $5.00, which – along with the Regional 31‐Day Pass – is accepted on all fixed route buses  operated by the various transit agencies in the county. Senior citizens, disabled passengers,  Medicare card holders, and kindergarten through 12th grade students all ride for half fare. RTA  offers discounted passes in a 1 day, 7 day, and 31 day increments. Only the regional day pass is  available for purchase on the bus. RTA also sells a stored value card. Children under 44 inches  tall as well as riders age 80 and above ride for free.    The Runabout fare policy is consistent with guidelines of the Americans with Disability Act.  Fares are twice the base cash fare of RTA fixed route services for a similar trip, with a cap of  $10.00 for each Runabout one‐way trip. All ADA passengers are eligible to use RTA, SLO Transit2  and other regional fixed routes at no fare. The shifting of ridership from Runabout to fixed  routes3 helps to substantially reduce overall Runabout costs, while encouraging ADA  passengers to use the more inclusive fixed route service.    Ride On Transportation     Ride On Transportation is an independent non‐profit specialized transportation provider which  services San Luis Obispo County. They provide a range of shuttle services for veterans, seniors,  people with disabilities, and social service agencies. Additionally, they provide shuttle services  for the general public to coordinate airport shuttles, Amtrak shuttles, vanpools, event  transport, and a range of other transportation services. Ride On Transportation serves as the  Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) for San Luis Obispo County.    Cambria Community Bus    The Cambria Community Bus operates through the Cambria Community Council, and is  administered on behalf of SLO County by RTA. The bus provides transportation services for  seniors, persons with disabilities, and youth programs. In addition, Cambria Community Bus  shares some of its volunteer drivers with Cambria Anonymous Neighbors due to the small size  of the community. The Cambria Community Council receives funding in the form of mileage  reimbursement through the County via RTA. This is a curb‐to‐curb service reserved in advance.  One bus runs Monday through Friday and provides local transit in Cambria. Once a week, the  bus provides a group trip to San Luis Obispo. Further, once a month the bus provides a group  trip to medical services in Templeton and shopping malls in Paso Robles.                                                                  2 SLO Transit’s inclusion in this strategy began in September 2015.  3 Roughly 10,000 fixed‐route boardings by persons eligible for Runabout occurred in FY 2014‐15.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 74 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 58 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     Cayucos Senior Van    The Cayucos Senior Van is rideshare transportation option available for seniors. This service is  reserved in advance and is administered on behalf of SLO County by RTA. This service is  primarily funded from proceeds from the senior thrift store, and with SLO County funds; trips  are made 7 days a week to locations as close as Morro Bay (shopping, medical) or as far as the  Five Cities, depending upon demand.    Cambria Anonymous Neighbors    Cambria Anonymous Neighbors is a non‐profit organization that provides volunteer driver  transportation to seniors and persons with disabilities who need transportation to non‐ emergency medical appointments.     San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare    San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare is a division of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments  (SLOCOG) which provides regional transportation information, road conditions, and other  commute resources. This program supports reducing single occupant vehicle travel by  encouraging other options for commuting including rideshare matching for carpooling and  vanpools. Other modes of rideshare transportation information is presented for bike, carpool,  vanpool, shuttles and taxi services, and public transit.     Additionally, San Luis Obispo Rideshare manages the regional mobility management program.  The goal of the mobility management program is to bridge the communication gap between  public transit agencies and social service agencies. As part of mobility management, SLO  Regional Rideshare manages the first rural 511 trip planning service in the nation which  provides concise transportation information on road conditions, public transportation,  ridesharing, and roadside assistance in both English and Spanish. The 511 service is utilized  throughout the state and is funded by the Caltrans New Freedom Grant. Other aspects of  mobility management include:     Launch of a county‐wide online bus trip planner   Personalized trip planning assistance by calling 781‐1385   One‐on‐one transportation training with agency staff   Agency wide transportation information presentation or training   Transportation Information Centers for onsite use   Organized group Transit Field Trips   Mobility training to become a trainer for your clients   Door‐to‐door trip assistance       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 75   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 59   Cal Poly Late Night Escort Service    For Cal Poly students, the Cal Poly Late Night Escort Service is available through the University  Police Department. This service provides transportation to locations from and within the  campus between the hours of 7:00 PM and 12:00 PM.     SLO Safe Ride    SLO Safe Ride is a for‐profit company that provides transportation services for events, late‐night  rides, weddings, wine tasting, and various other shuttle services. They have been supporting  the San Luis Obispo area since 2010. Reservations are made in advance.    Amtrak/LOSSAN    Amtrak is a national railroad service that provides services to more than 500 destinations in 46  states. In California, the Los‐Angeles‐San Diego‐San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency  encourages rail transportation efficiencies with increased ridership, revenue, capacity,  reliability, and safety within the LOSSAN Corridor along the California coast. Amtrak operates  the Pacific Surfliner which services San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa  Barbara, and San Luis Obispo. During 2014 the Pacific Surfliner made 2 daily round trips from  San Diego to San Luis Obispo (source: Amtrak California 2014 Fact Sheet). Amtrak California  Thruway Connection buses provide an additional five roundtrips connecting to Pacific Surfliner  trains that do not serve San Luis Obispo County stations and two roundtrips that operate  through San Luis Obispo and Grover Beach connecting Santa Maria and Hanford. Beyond Pacific  Surfliner service, the Coast Starlight operates daily between Los Angeles and Seattle. In San Luis  Obispo County, there are multiple transit options available for transportation to the Amtrak  stations in Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo, and Grover Beach.     Greyhound    Greyhound Lines, Inc. is a national bus transportation service with 3,000 stops in North  America. Tickets can be purchased to travel within a state or to other states. There are two  Greyhound bus stop locations in San Luis Obispo County: one at 1460 Calle Joaquin Street in  San Luis Obispo and another in San Miguel at Mission and 14th Streets. Only the San Miguel  location is served on a limited basis by RTA Route 9.    Taxis    Taxis in the San Luis Obispo area provide service to any destination. They can be found on short  notice in downtown San Luis Obispo and at the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport. More than 20  different taxi companies provide service to in the region. Among these companies are  transportation network companies such as Uber. In the City of San Luis Obispo the Mass  Transportation Committee is responsible for policy and oversight over transit services and taxis.     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 76 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 60 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     This page left intentionally blank.     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 77   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 61   Chapter 4  Goals and Objectives    INTRODUCTION    An important element in the success of any organization is a clear and concise set of goals and  objectives, as well as the performance measures and standards needed to attain them. This can  be particularly important for a public transit agency, for several reasons:     Transit goals can be inherently contradictory. For instance, the goal of maximizing cost  effectiveness can tend to focus services on the largest population centers, while the goal of  maximizing the availability of public transit services can tend to disperse services to outlying  areas. To best meet its overall mission, a public transit agency must therefore be continually  balancing the trade‐offs between goals. Adopting policy statements also allows a discussion  of community values regarding transit issues that is at a higher level of discussion than is  possible when considering case‐by‐case individual issues.     As a public entity, a public transit organization is expending public funds, and therefore has  a responsibility to provide the public with transparent information on how funds are being  spent and how well it is doing in meeting its goals. Funding partners also have a  responsibility to ensure that funds provided to the transit program are being used  appropriately. The transit organization therefore has a responsibility to provide information  regarding the effectiveness and efficiency by which public funds are being spent.     An adopted set of goals and performance standards helps to communicate the values of the  transit program to other organizations, to the public, and to the organization staff.     EXISTING POLICY STATEMENTS    As a City‐provided service, SLO Transit is guided by the transportation policies defined in the  City’s General Plan. In addition, the City develops transit department goals as part of the  biannual budgeting process. Performance standards were developed as part of the 2009 SRTP  effort, although not all of those standards are regularly analyzed as part of the transit  department’s reports provided to its Mass Transportation Committee (MTC).     San Luis Obispo General Plan    A new City General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) was adopted by the San Luis  Obispo City Council on December 9, 2014. It includes the following key policy statements  regarding transit:    1.6.1 Transportation Goals … Goal #2 ‐ Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and  promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools. (Note  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 78 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 62 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     that this goal is quantified in Table 1 elsewhere in the document by setting a goal of 12  percent transit “mode split” ‐‐ proportion of all trips made by transit).   1.7.1 Encourage Better Transportation Habits ‐ San Luis Obispo should: 1. Increase the use of  alternative forms of transportation (as shown in Table 1) and depend less on the single‐ occupant use of vehicles. (Note that Table 1 of the document identifies a goal of 12 percent  transit “mode split” ‐‐ proportion of all trips made by transit) 2. Ask the San Luis Obispo  Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objective similar to #1 and support  programs that reduce the interregional use of single‐occupant vehicles and increase the use  of alternative forms of transportation.  1.7.2 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation ‐ San Luis Obispo should: … 2. Complete  improvements to the city's transit system serving existing developed areas by 2035, and  provide service to new growth areas  1.7.4 Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement …1B. When replacing any  City vehicle or expanding the City's vehicle fleet, the City will consider purchasing alternative  fuel vehicles that reduce air pollution.  1.7.5 Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation – San Luis Obispo will physically monitor  the achievement of the modal shift objectives shown on Table 1, and bi‐annually review and  adjust transportation programs if necessary.  2.2.4 Incentives for Educational Institutions ‐ The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly,  Cuesta College, and other educational institutions to provide incentives to all students,  faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation.  Transit Service Policies   3.1.1 Transit Development ‐ The City shall encourage transit accessibility, development,  expansion, coordination and marketing throughout San Luis Obispo County to serve a broad  range of local and regional transportation needs.   3.1.2 City Bus Service ‐ The City shall improve and expand city bus service to make the  system more convenient and accessible for everyone. Transit services owned and operated  by the City shall endeavor to maintain and improve all system‐side transit standards  identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan.   3.1.3 Paratransit Service ‐ The City shall continue to support paratransit service for seniors  and persons with disabilities by public, private and volunteer transportation providers.   3.1.4 Campus Service ‐ The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly to maintain and expand  the "free fare subsidy program" for campus affiliates. The City shall work with Cuesta  College and other schools to establish similar programs.   3.1.5 Unmet Transit Needs ‐ The City shall work with SLOCOG to identify and address Unmet  Transit Needs.   3.1.6 Service Standards ‐ The City shall implement the following service standards for its  transit system and for development that is proximate to the transit network:   A. Routes, schedules and transfer procedures of the City and regional transit systems  should be coordinated to encourage commuter use of buses.   B. In existing developed areas, transit routes should be located within 1/4 mile of  existing businesses or dwellings.   C. In City expansion areas, employment‐intensive uses or medium, medium‐high or high  density residential uses should be located within 1/8 mile of a transit route.   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 79   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 63   D. The spacing of stops should balance patron convenience and speed of operation.   3.1.7 Transit Service Access ‐ New development should be designed to facilitate access to  transit service.   3.2.1 Transit Plans ‐ The City shall continue to implement the Short Range Transit Plan (5‐ year time frame) and coordinate with SLOCOG on implementing the Long Range Transit  Master Plan (20‐year time frame). The Plans shall consider funding partnerships to continue  the Downtown Trolley service as part of the overall transit system as funding permits.   3.2.2 Bulk Rate Transit Passes ‐ The City shall make available bulk rate transit passes to all  groups.   3.2.3 Commuter Bus Service ‐ The City of San Luis Obispo shall work with the San Luis Obispo  Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to maintain and expand commuter bus service to and  from the City of San Luis Obispo during peak demand periods consistent with the Short  Range Transit Plan and Long Range Transit Plan.   3.2.4 Transit Service Evaluation ‐ The City shall coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Regional  Transit Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of consolidated service.   3.2.5 Marketing and Promotion ‐ The City shall develop and maintain a comprehensive  marketing and promotion program to reach individual target audiences.   3.2.6 The City shall update its Short Range Transit Plan to evaluate adding mass transit stops  at the high school and the middle school.  3.1.8 Regional Transit Center ‐ The City shall work with other agencies to develop a regional  transit center downtown.   11.1.3 Public Transit Service 00 The City shall encourage improved public transit service to  the County airport as soon as practical.    While achieving some of these policy statements is within the control of the City and its transit  program, others (such as expansion of funding programs) require actions on the part of others,  including implementation of long‐range regional transit plans and improvements in regional  commuter bus service. This reflects the need for ongoing coordination between the City,  SLOCOG and SLORTA to achieve the City’s transit‐related goals.     Biennial Budgeting Process    The City has developed an integrated process that ties goal setting with the bi‐annual budget  development. This is initiated with a City Council goal‐setting workshop, the most recent of  which was held on January 24, 2015. Significant to this SRTP study, this process yielded three  “major goals” for the 2015‐17 budget process, among which is “Multi‐Modal Transportation:  Prioritize implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan and improve and maintain bicycle,  pedestrian and transit facilities.”    2009 Short Range Transit Plan    The Short Range Transit Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo completed by Urbitran  Associates in 2009 lists the “proposed service standards” shown in Table 25. As some of these      ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 80 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 64 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     standards are based on the average of peer systems, the peer analysis conducted in the 2009  study was updated, as shown in Table 26, and the updated peer averages included in Table 25.      TABLE 25: SLO Transit  Service Standards Category Standard Service  Coverage 90% of population within  ¼ mile of a  bus  route Route spacing guide presented  in separate table (Note 1) Employment concentrations  of 200 or more employees Health Centers Middle and High Schools Colleges/Universities Shopping Centers  over 25 stores or 100,000 SF of retail space Social  Service/Government Center 30 minute peak 60 minute off‐peak 5 AM to  10 PM on weekday s 6 AM to  7 PM on weekends Directness Maximum 25% of passengers  transferring Patron Convenience Speed Regular  routes maximum of 15 MPH Loading 25% standees  for short periods  acceptable 5 to 7 stops per mile in core (every other block) Fringe 4 to  5  per mile, as needed based on land us es No  missed tr i ps 95% on‐time service (not early  and no more than  5  minutes  late) Road Call  Ratio 4,000  to  6,000 miles  per road call Fiscal Condition Fare Structure Fare Structure ‐Qualitative criteria Farebox Recovery ‐ Significantly alter routes less than 60% of peer group average (22%  is average) Review and modify routes between 60% and 80% peer group average Significantly alter routes  less than 60% of peer  group average (1.9 passengers  per mile  and 24 passengers per hour) Review and modify routes  between 60% and 80% peer group average Significantly alter routes more than 140% of peer  group average cost per passenger  ($3.37) or SLO system average Review and modify routes  between 120% and 140% average Passenger  Comfort Waiting Shelters 25 or more boardings Bus  Stop Signs Denote SLO  Transit, contact information, and route Revenue Equipment Clean  and good condition Public Information Timetable, maps, advertising Source: San Luis  Obispo  Transit Short Range  Transit Plan  Final  Report, Urbitran Associates, 2009.  Peer data   updated to  FY 2013. Major  Activity  Center  Availability Residential  Area   Availability Frequency Span Bus  Stop Spacing Note  1: This  table  provides  recommended  route  spacing based upon population density and the  proportion of  households  without autos.  It ranges  from 1/4 mile spacing in the  densest areas with highest non‐auto  households up to  1 mile spacing. Dependability Farebox Recovery Productivity Cost Effectiveness  and  Efficiency ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 81   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 65          TA B L E  26 :  SL O  Tr a n s i t  Pe e r  Gr o u p  Da t a  an d  Pe r f o r m a n c e  In d i c a t o r s    Al l  Da t a  fo r  F Y 2 0 1 3 ,  Fi x e d  Ro u t e  Se r v i c e s  On l y Pe e r  Sy s t e m Op e r a t i n g   Ex p e n s e s F a r e  Re v e n u e Ve h i c l e   Re v e n u e  Mi l e s Ve h i c l e   Re v e n u e  Ho u r s Un l i n k e d   Pa s s e n g e r   Tr i p s Ci t y  of  Gr e e l e y ,  C O $ 2 , 1 1 3 , 2 3 2 $ 5 1 7 , 7 3 0 4 4 8 , 7 2 7 3 2 , 8 5 4 5 2 5 , 1 8 6 Bl o o m i n g t o n ,  I N $6 , 3 3 5 , 1 2 5 $ 1 , 5 4 5 , 1 8 7 9 9 3 , 5 2 5 9 2 , 7 1 7 3 , 4 5 4 , 8 8 9 St .  Cl o u d ,  MN $6 , 5 4 4 , 2 4 3 $ 1 , 3 3 7 , 0 2 1 1 , 1 9 5 , 6 7 1 8 4 , 7 8 5 2 , 1 9 7 , 2 1 0 La s  Cr u c e s ,  N M $2 , 5 6 2 , 7 8 7 $ 5 7 9 , 1 8 3 5 0 6 , 2 6 0 3 6 , 5 5 7 7 5 9 , 6 4 5 Ch a r l o t t e s v i l l e  Tr a n s i t ,  V A $6 , 6 1 4 , 8 5 1 $ 7 5 6 , 5 7 0 9 4 1 , 2 8 2 8 8 , 8 9 5 2 , 4 0 5 , 1 5 1 Bl a c k s b u r g  Tr a n s i t ,  V A $ 4 , 5 4 8 , 5 8 6 $ 1 , 4 2 9 , 7 1 4 7 8 4 , 4 4 2 4 7 , 6 0 7 9 2 7 , 5 6 5 Ea u  Cl a i r e  Tr a n s i t ,  WI $ 3 , 7 6 0 , 7 8 4 $ 7 0 9 , 8 4 3 6 9 4 , 8 6 3 4 6 , 3 9 8 1 , 0 0 0 , 8 1 6 Ci t y  of  Sa n  Lu i s  Ob i s p o ,  C A $3 , 3 0 9 , 6 7 4 $ 6 5 4 , 9 0 0 3 9 3 , 8 3 1 3 2 , 5 8 6 1 , 1 0 9 , 5 5 9 Pe e r  Sy s t e m Co s t  pe r   Ve h i c l e   Re v e n u e  Mi l e Co s t  pe r   Ve h i c l e   Re v e n u e  Ho u r Pa s s e n g e r  pe r   Ve h i c l e   Re v e n u e  Mi l e Pa s s e n g e r s  pe r   Ve h i c l e   Re v e n u e  Ho u r Co s t  pe r   Pa s s e n g e r Av e r a g e   Fa r e Su b s i d y  pe r   Pa s s e n g e r Fa r e b o x   Re c o v e r y   Ra t i o Ci t y  of  Gr e e l e y ,  CO $4 . 7 1 $ 6 4 . 3 2 1 . 1 7 16 . 0 $ 4 . 0 2 $ 0 . 9 9 $ 3 . 0 4 2 4 . 5 % Bl o o m i n g t o n ,  I N $6 . 3 8 $ 6 8 . 3 3 3 . 4 8 37 . 3 $ 1 . 8 3 $ 0 . 4 5 $ 1 . 3 9 2 4 . 4 % St .  Cl o u d ,  MN $5 . 4 7 $ 7 7 . 1 9 1 . 8 4 25 . 9 $ 2 . 9 8 $ 0 . 6 1 $ 2 . 3 7 2 0 . 4 % La s  Cr u c e s ,  N M $5 . 0 6 $ 7 0 . 1 0 1 . 5 0 20 . 8 $ 3 . 3 7 $ 0 . 7 6 $ 2 . 6 1 2 2 . 6 % Ch a r l o t t e s v i l l e  Tr a n s i t ,  V A $7 . 0 3 $ 7 4 . 4 1 2 . 5 6 27 . 1 $ 2 . 7 5 $ 0 . 3 1 $ 2 . 4 4 1 1 . 4 % Bl a c k s b u r g  Tr a n s i t ,  V A $ 5 . 8 0 $ 9 5 . 5 4 1 . 1 8 19 . 5 $ 4 . 9 0 $ 1 . 5 4 $ 3 . 3 6 3 1 . 4 % Ea u  Cl a i r e  Tr a n s i t ,  WI $ 5 . 4 1 $ 8 1 . 0 5 1 . 4 4 21 . 6 $ 3 . 7 6 $ 0 . 7 1 $ 3 . 0 5 1 8 . 9 % Pe e r  M a x i m u m $7 . 0 3 $ 9 5 . 5 4 3 . 4 8 37 . 3 $ 4 . 9 0 $ 1 . 5 4 $ 3 . 3 6 31 . 4 % Pe e r  A v e r a g e $5 . 6 9 $ 7 5 . 8 5 1 . 8 8 24 . 0 $ 3 . 3 7 $ 0 . 7 7 $ 2 . 6 1 22 . 0 % Pe e r  M i n i m u m $4 . 7 1 $ 6 4 . 3 2 1 . 1 7 16 . 0 $ 1 . 8 3 $ 0 . 3 1 $ 1 . 3 9 11 . 4 % Ci t y  of  Sa n  Lu i s  Ob i s p o ,  C A $8 . 4 0 $ 1 0 1 . 5 7 2 . 8 2 34 . 1 $ 2 . 9 8 $ 0 . 5 9 $ 2 . 3 9 2 3 . 2 % SL O  Tr a n s i t  Ra n k  (1  = B e s t ) 8 8 2 2 4 6 3 4 So u r c e :  Na t i o n a l  Tr a n s i t  D a t a b a s e Mi s s o u r i  St a t e  Un i v . ,  Sp r i n g f i e l d  MO  ex c l u d e d ,  as  it  st o p p e d  in d e p e n d e n t  op e r a t i o n s  in  20 0 7 IN P U T  DA T A PE R F O R M A N C E  I N D I C A T O R S ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 82 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 66 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SLOCOG)    While SLOCOG does not directly operate transit services, it is integral in the funding allocation  and planning process. As such, it is worthwhile to review SLOCOG policies and monitoring  efforts. As discussed below, there are two documents that directly address transit performance  and policies: the Performance Measures Report and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).    SLOCOG Performance Measures Report    SLOCOG has developed a performance measurement program for all elements of  transportation throughout San Luis Obispo County. Though it does not set specific performance  standards, it does reflect the factors deemed important to the COG. The 2013 Transportation  System Performance Measures Report includes the following transit‐related measures.     Total Annual Public Transit Ridership   Transit Vehicle Collisions per 100,000 Miles   Average Age of Transit Vehicles   Regional Priority: Connectivity and Integration – Support additional routes that address  needs and implement recommendations of short range transit plans and performance  audits.    SLOCOG 2014 RTP    SLOCOG’s 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy provides an  important region‐wide policy document. Key transit‐related policy statements consist of the  following:    Public Transportation Goal   Provide sustainable, comprehensive and accessible region‐wide public transportation  services to allow persons in the County access to essential services, to improve air quality  and overall mobility, and to reduce traffic congestion. Essential services include educational,  recreational, health care and employment opportunities.  Public Transportation Objectives    System Preservation ‐‐ Support efforts of transit, rail and airlines to maintain age &  condition of vehicles as needed to provide safe public transportation    Safety & Security ‐‐ Support efforts of transit, rail & aviation system operators to  maintain high standards for safe operation of their vehicles    Mobility & Accessibility ‐‐ Support efforts to increase fleet size, routes served &  frequency of service to address demand    Connectivity & Integration ‐‐ Support efforts to serve additional routes that address  needs and implement recommendations of short range transit plans and performance  audits.   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 83   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 67    Overall Conclusion ‐‐ The region's transportation systems are effectively addressing  regional priorities  Public Transportation Policies  PT 1. Service Level: Provide regional fixed‐route transit services between connecting major  and minor population centers; maintain appropriate local community transit services; and  provide paratransit service, as necessary all coordinated with regional/local services to meet  the identified transit needs. The appropriate levels of service shall be determined by the  Short‐Range Transit Plan (SRTP) updates (in agreement with sub area transit plans) and  consistent with the RTP regional policies.   PT 2. Convenience and Amenities: Improve convenience and passenger amenities for public  transit service users where feasible and cost‐effective, to make transit attractive to both  transportation‐disadvantaged and choice riders, with a goal to increase ridership at least 4  percent each year (all services combined).   PT 3. Sustainable Communities Strategy: Emphasize public transit’s role in the coordinated  effort to reduce overall VMT and improve air quality in tandem with ridesharing incentives  programs, proposed regulatory changes and potential technological applications  (alternative fuels, automated passenger information, automated vehicle location etc.)   PT 4. Vanpool Programs: Encourage growth in commuter vanpool programs through user‐ side incentives, outreach, education and promotion. Continue to support the agricultural  workers’ vanpool program via targeted bi‐lingual outreach and subsidies.   PT 5. Efficiency and Effectiveness: Ensure the provision of reliable public transit services to  meet mobility needs at the lowest reasonable cost and encourage better coordination and  consolidation among different transit and paratransit systems for more efficient service  delivery.   PT 6. Public Participation: Maximize regional input from the general public, jurisdictions, and  groups on all aspects of public transit.   PT 7. Corridor Planning: Focus on sub‐regional corridor and system planning in  geographically similar areas to reduce planning costs and enhance coordination and system  integration.   PT 8. Specialized Transit Services: Develop and provide specialized services and systems to  meet the needs of transportation disadvantaged individuals, including those with disabilities  or mobility impairments, seniors and persons with low income.   PT 9. Express Bus Corridors: Support the regional deployment of a BRT network along main  commute corridors enabling the delivery of more competitive travel times and more  attractive bus transit services.   PT10. Construct Central Area Regional and Local Transportation Center ‐ Support a  coordinated transit facility in downtown San Luis Obispo.    Existing Monitoring and Ongoing Service Improvement Process    City of San Luis Obispo    On a monthly basis the contractor (First Transit) provides a summary report that details the  following:  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 84 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 68 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan        Ridership by route by fare category   Total passenger revenue by fare category   Revenue and non‐revenue vehicle hours and miles, by route and by  weekday/Saturday/Sunday   Ridership per revenue vehicle‐miles and revenue vehicle‐hour, by route   Costs and budget tracking    A “Performance Measures Report” is prepared by SLO Transit staff on a quarterly basis. This  summarizes the following data:     Passengers by mode (fixed route daytime, trolley, fixed route evening)   Revenue‐hours and revenue‐miles by mode   Productivity (passengers per revenue hour) by mode   Contractor operating costs by mode   Fare revenues by mode   Farebox ratio by mode   Average fare by mode   Cost and subsidy per rider, by mode   Year‐over‐year trends in ridership by fare type, revenue hours and revenue miles, by  weekday/Saturday/Sunday    In addition, an “On‐Time Performance Report” is generated monthly using the City’s GPS‐based  automatic vehicle tracking system. It reports the number and percent of on‐time, early and late  arrivals, by route, at key time points. For instance, performance on Route 3 is tracked at five  time points out of the 27 total bus stops served. The report also presents the average minutes  that late runs are late, and early runs are early.    Discussion and Recommended Improvements    The City’s General Plan provides a reasonable set of goals for the transit program. It bears  noting that if the City is to achieve the LUCE goal of a 12 percent transit mode split by 2035, it  would require a substantial expansion of transit ridership. City staff reports that a comparison  of existing transit ridership with total travel demand indicates that at present approximately 7  percent of travel is via transit. Given that expansion of transit services typically have lower  productivity than current services, this infers that at least a 70 percent expansion of transit  service would be needed to achieve this goal. It also may well require some combination of  “auto disincentives” such as expanded paid parking programs, restrictions on parking  availability, etc.    It would be beneficial to the transit program to develop and adopt its own department Mission  Statement separate from the City’s. This key policy element can help focus the organization on  those ideals that are most important, and can also help create a sense of common purpose  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 85   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 69   within the staff. A reasonable starting point would be “To enhance the mobility and  environment of San Luis Obispo through effective and safe public transit services.”    Specific considerations regarding the performance standards are as follows:     The route spacing guides shown in the previous SRTP based on population density and non‐ auto households is useful, so long as it is understood to be simply a guide. In reality, the  limitations of the roadway network and other factors such as key activity centers also define  route spacing.     The service span standards for weekends (6 AM to 7 PM) may be too broad, as it exceeds  the current span (8 AM to 6 PM).      The road call ratio shown in the 2009 SRTP (4,000 to 6,000 per road call) would better be  stated as “no less than 4,000 vehicle service miles per road call”. Given that the program is  exceeding this figure (at 5,700 miles between road calls at present), and given that 4,000 is  relatively low compared to transit industry typical standards, it is recommended that a  more aspirational standard of “no less than 6,000 vehicle service miles per road call” be  adopted.      A safety standard of 1 preventable accident per 100,000 should be adopted.     The passenger comfort standard of providing a shelter for stops with 25 or more boardings  per day should be considered for reduction to 20 or more boardings per day.     The public information standard should be modified to include website and social media.     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 86 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 70 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     This page left intentionally blank.     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 87   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 71   Chapter 5  Peer System Review    To help gain an understanding of the effectiveness of the SLO Transit program, a peer analysis  has been conducted.     PEER SYSTEM SELECTION    An initial list of 20 peer candidates was compiled. Since the peer analysis utilized peer systems  throughout the country, this larger candidacy pool was used to ensure relevancy among the  peer systems. The peer information was drawn from National Transit Database 2013 data. The  majority of the peer systems identified had a similar service area population to SLO Transit and  were located within a university town. In addition, the Bloomington‐Normal Public Transit  System (of Illinois) was included as a peer system due to its status as the American Public  Transportation Association’s elected 2015 Outstanding Public Transit System.    For each peer candidate, the following data was collected, as shown in Table 27:     Operating Expenses   Fare Revenue   Vehicle Revenue Miles   Vehicle Revenue Hours   Unlinked Passenger Trips   Peak Vehicles   Service Area Population   Service Area    Four indicator categories (operating expenses, peak vehicles, service area population, and  service area) were analyzed among the peer candidates and SLO Transit. As shown in Table 28,  the percent difference from SLO Transit was calculated in each category for each peer  candidate. An average of these percent differences was then taken to illustrate the overall peer  variance from SLO Transit in terms of operating level and service size. Peer systems with  average percent differences from SLO Transit of over 80 percent were eliminated from the peer  review. The City of Corvallis transit system was also eliminated due to its free fare system.     The final peer group, consisting of systems that have comparable service spans and production  levels to SLO Transit, includes the following:      City of Pocatello ‐ Pocatello Regional Transit (PRT) – Operated by the City of Pocatello,  Idaho, PCT Transit provides fixed route service to urban and rural areas within Pocatello, as  well as Idaho State University campus.      Pueblo Transit System (PT) – Pueblo Transit is a publicly‐owned transit system operated by  the City of Pueblo, Colorado and managed by the US Department of Transportation. Fixed  route service is available throughout the city of Pueblo, with access to CSU Pueblo.       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 88 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 72 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          Ag e n c y  Na m e Op e r a t i n g   Ex p e n s e s F a r e  Re v e n u e Ve h i c l e  Re v e n u e   Mi l e s Ve h i c l e   Re v e n u e  Ho u r s Un l i n k e d   Pa s s e n g e r  Tr i p s Pe a k   Ve h i c l e s Se r v i c e  Ar e a   Po p u l a t i o n Se r v i c e  Ar e a   (S q  mi ) Mi s s o u l a  Ur b a n  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Di s t r i c t  (M o u n t a i n  Li n e ) 3 , 8 1 9 , 0 1 6 2 7 6 , 9 5 9 5 8 2 , 9 1 4 4 4 , 6 3 0 8 8 6 , 0 4 9 1 8 6 9 , 9 9 9 7 0 Ci t y  of  Co r v a l l i s  (C T S ) 2 , 5 3 3 , 3 4 5 0 4 1 1 , 4 4 8 2 8 , 2 7 8 1 , 1 8 3 , 0 7 2 1 1 5 4 , 6 7 4 1 4 Ci t y  of  Po c a t e l l o  ‐   Po c a t e l l o  Re g i o n a l  Tr a n s i t  (P R T ) 1, 1 5 2 , 0 7 8 9 0 , 0 7 5 3 4 5 , 8 1 0 2 3 , 5 7 2 3 1 3 , 7 8 3 1 1 8 1 , 7 3 0 2 7 Pu e b l o  Tr a n s i t  Sy s t e m  (P T ) 3, 8 6 0 , 2 2 5 5 0 3 , 7 8 1 5 4 0 , 6 0 1 3 9 , 1 7 3 9 9 5 , 5 8 9 1 9 1 0 5 , 0 0 0 3 9 Un i t r a n s  ‐   Ci t y  of  Da v i s 4, 1 3 3 , 8 2 1 2 , 1 3 6 , 4 2 4 8 0 1 , 0 0 7 8 0 , 0 5 0 3 , 8 8 0 , 4 6 4 3 6 7 2 , 6 1 1 1 3 Tu s c a l o o s a  Co u n t y  Pa r k i n g  an d  Tr a n s i t  Au t h o r i t y 1, 2 5 7 , 2 8 9 1 5 1 , 3 8 6 2 7 1 , 8 3 4 1 8 , 7 6 4 2 9 3 , 3 9 1 7 1 3 6 , 4 8 7 1 7 1 No r t h e r n  Ar i z o n a  I n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l  Pu b l i c  Tr a n s i t   Au t h o r i t y  (N A I P T A ) 5, 2 4 9 , 6 6 9 1 , 3 5 4 , 3 7 7 7 0 0 , 8 7 9 5 7 , 4 3 4 1 , 8 4 2 , 3 2 2 2 1 7 1 , 9 5 7 3 5 Un i v e r s i t y  of  Io w a  (C a m b u s ) 2, 9 9 7 , 2 4 8 0 74 5 , 9 1 2 7 3 , 4 2 1 4 , 4 9 9 , 8 7 8 2 6 7 1 , 3 7 2 3 0 Ca p i t a l  Ar e a  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Au t h o r i t y  (C A T A ) 27 , 4 5 3 , 8 4 6 6 , 4 5 3 , 0 1 9 3 , 1 0 9 , 6 4 8 2 3 7 , 7 7 2 1 1 , 3 5 8 , 5 3 5 7 9 2 8 7 , 5 9 8 1 3 6 La s  Cr u c e s  Ar e a  Tr a n s i t  (R o a d R U N N E R  Tr a n s i t ) 2, 5 6 2 , 7 8 7 5 7 9 , 1 8 3 5 0 6 , 2 6 0 3 6 , 5 5 7 7 5 9 , 6 4 5 1 2 1 0 7 , 4 1 9 5 5 Un i v e r s i t y  of  Ge o r g i a  Tr a n s i t  Sy s t e m  (U G A ) 5, 3 5 5 , 4 8 4 6 , 2 8 1 , 7 2 0 8 5 3 , 6 4 4 1 1 4 , 9 5 9 1 1 , 0 5 8 , 9 4 4 4 7 4 4 , 0 0 0 1 4 Te r r e  Ha u t e  Tr a n s i t  Ut i l i t y  (T H T U ) 2, 0 9 5 , 4 7 2 1 5 6 , 0 0 0 4 5 9 , 4 5 6 4 6 , 2 5 0 3 9 4 , 6 7 8 8 5 9 , 6 1 4 1 8 Ci t y  of  St .  Ge o r g e  (S u n T r a n ) 94 4 , 7 1 2 1 6 3 , 5 9 8 2 2 8 , 1 1 1 1 7 , 6 9 2 4 7 3 , 8 5 1 6 7 5 , 5 6 1 3 5 Wi l l i a m s b u r g  Ar e a  Tr a n s i t  Au t h o r i t y  (W A T A ) 6, 2 1 6 , 3 0 9 5 6 2 , 0 6 0 1 , 2 7 9 , 9 3 7 8 9 , 8 0 4 2 , 5 4 6 , 8 0 8 4 0 5 7 , 0 0 0 1 4 4 Me s a  Co u n t y  (G V T ) 3, 4 6 7 , 3 7 3 4 4 3 , 6 6 7 8 6 3 , 8 8 6 5 6 , 7 2 1 9 7 4 , 6 4 4 1 2 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 6 6 Bi l l i n g s  Me t r o p o l i t a n  Tr a n s i t  (B i l l i n g s  ME T  Tr a n s i t ) 3, 6 6 5 , 2 4 5 3 2 2 , 3 8 3 5 7 2 , 7 6 8 3 8 , 3 1 0 6 0 9 , 1 9 4 2 0 1 1 4 , 7 7 3 3 4 Un i v e r s i t y  of  Ar k a n s a s ,  Fa y e t t e v i l l e  (R a z o r b a c k  Tr a n s i t )   2, 2 7 4 , 7 5 3 1 , 4 0 5 , 3 1 7 4 1 3 , 2 4 5 3 9 , 6 3 6 2 , 0 0 6 , 7 2 2 1 9 7 5 , 1 0 2 1 8 Th e  Ci ty  of  Bo w l i n g  Gr e e n / C o m m u n i t y  Ac t i o n  of  So u t h e r n   Ke n t u c k y  (C A S K ) 97 8 , 0 7 7 5 5 , 2 5 7 1 8 0 , 9 1 7 1 4 , 3 6 5 1 0 7 , 5 1 5 6 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 5 Sa n t a  Cr u z  Me t r o p o l i t a n  Tr a n s i t  Di s t r i c t  (S C M T D ) 34 , 3 3 2 , 7 1 7 8 , 5 6 9 , 2 6 1 3 , 1 7 2 , 0 1 1 2 1 5 , 6 1 3 5 , 3 6 9 , 6 7 0 8 3 2 5 4 , 5 3 8 4 4 6 Bl o o m i n g t o n ‐No r m a l  Pu b l i c  Tr a n s i t  Sy s t e m 7, 5 3 0 , 1 6 7 1 , 2 4 8 , 5 1 4 1 , 3 0 3 , 8 3 1 9 0 , 9 1 3 2 , 0 0 9 , 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 9 , 1 0 7 4 6 SL O  Tr a n s i t 3, 3 0 9 , 6 7 4 6 5 4 , 9 0 0 3 9 3 , 8 3 1 3 2 , 5 8 6 1 , 1 0 9 , 5 5 9 1 0 5 2 , 5 7 6 2 0 So u r c e :  Na t i o n a l  Tr a n s i t  Da t a b a s e  20 1 3  Da t a TA B L E  27 :  SL O  Tr a n s i t  Pe e r  Ca n d i d a t e  Op e r a t i n g  Da t a ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 89   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 73      TA B L E  28 :  SL O  Tr a n s i t  In i t i a l  Pe e r  Ca n d i d a t e  Pe r f o r m a n c e  In d i c a t o r s  an d  Ev a l u a t i o n Pe e r  Sy s t e m s Ag e n c y  Na m e # %  fr o m  SL O # %  fr o m  SL O # %  fr o m  SL O # %  fr o m  SL O Mi s s o u l a  Ur b a n  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Di s t r i c t  (M o u n t a i n  Li n e ) $3 , 8 1 9 , 0 1 6 1 5 . 4 % 1 8 8 0 . 0 % 6 9 , 9 9 9 3 3 . 1 % 7 0 2 5 0 . 0 % Ci t y  of  Co r v a l l i s  ( C T S ) $2 , 5 3 3 , 3 4 5 2 3 . 5 % 1 1 1 0 . 0 % 5 4 , 6 7 4 4 . 0 % 1 4 3 0 . 0 % Ci t y  of  Po c a t e l l o  ‐   Po c a t e l l o  Re g i o n a l  Tr a n s i t  ( P R T ) $1 , 1 5 2 , 0 7 8 6 5 . 2 % 1 1 1 0 . 0 % 8 1 , 7 3 0 5 5 . 5 % 2 7 3 5 . 0 % Pu e b l o  Tr a n s i t  Sy s t e m  ( P T ) $3 , 8 6 0 , 2 2 5 1 6 . 6 % 1 9 9 0 . 0 % 1 0 5 , 0 0 0 9 9 . 7 % 3 9 9 5 . 0 % Un i t r a n s  ‐   Ci t y  of  Da v i s $4 , 1 3 3 , 8 2 1 2 4 . 9 % 3 6 2 6 0 . 0 % 7 2 , 6 1 1 3 8 . 1 % 1 3 3 5 . 0 % Tu s c a l o o s a  Co u n t y  Pa r k i n g  an d  Tr a n s i t  A u t h o r i t y $1 , 2 5 7 , 2 8 9 6 2 . 0 % 7 3 0 . 0 % 1 3 6 , 4 8 7 1 5 9 . 6 % 1 7 1 7 5 5 . 0 % No r t h e r n  Ar i z o n a  In t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l  Pu b l i c  Tr a n s i t  Au t h o r i t y  ( N A I P T A ) $5 , 2 4 9 , 6 6 9 5 8 . 6 % 2 1 1 1 0 . 0 % 7 1 , 9 5 7 3 6 . 9 % 3 5 7 5 . 0 % Un i v e r s i t y  of  Io w a  ( C a m b u s ) $2 , 9 9 7 , 2 4 8 9 . 4 % 2 6 1 6 0 . 0 % 7 1 , 3 7 2 3 5 . 8 % 3 0 5 0 . 0 % Ca p i t a l  Ar e a  Tr a ns p o r t a t i o n  Au t h o r it y  ( C A T A ) $2 7 , 4 5 3 , 8 4 6 7 2 9 . 5 % 7 9 6 9 0 . 0 % 2 8 7 , 5 9 8 4 4 7 . 0 % 1 3 6 5 8 0 . 0 % La s  Cr u c e s  Ar e a  Tr a n s i t  (R o a d R U N N E R  Tr a n s i t ) $2 , 5 6 2 , 7 8 7 2 2 . 6 % 1 2 2 0 . 0 % 1 0 7 , 4 1 9 1 0 4 . 3 % 5 5 1 7 5 . 0 % Un i v e r s i t y  of  Ge o r g i a  Tr a n s i t  Sy s t e m  ( U G A ) $5 , 3 5 5 , 4 8 4 6 1 . 8 % 4 7 3 7 0 . 0 % 4 4 , 0 0 0 1 6 . 3 % 1 4 3 0 . 0 % Te r r e  Ha u t e  Tr a n s i t  Ut i l i t y  ( T H T U ) $2 , 0 9 5 , 4 7 2 3 6 . 7 % 8 2 0 . 0 % 5 9 , 6 1 4 1 3 . 4 % 1 8 1 0 . 0 % Ci t y  of  St .  Ge o r g e  ( S u n T r a n ) $9 4 4 , 7 1 2 7 1 . 5 % 6 4 0 . 0 % 7 5 , 5 6 1 4 3 . 7 % 3 5 7 5 . 0 % Wi l l i a m s b u r g  Ar e a  Tr a n s i t  Au t h o r i t y  ( W A T A ) $6 , 2 1 6 , 3 0 9 8 7 . 8 % 4 0 3 0 0 . 0 % 5 7 , 0 0 0 8 . 4 % 1 4 4 6 2 0 . 0 % Me s a  Co u n t y  ( G V T ) $3 , 4 6 7 , 3 7 3 4 . 8 % 1 2 2 0 . 0 % 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 1 2 8 . 2 % 6 6 2 3 0 . 0 % Bi l l i n g s  Me t r o p o l i t a n  Tr a n s i t  (B i l l i n g s  ME T  Tr a n s i t ) $3 , 6 6 5 , 2 4 5 1 0 . 7 % 2 0 1 0 0 . 0 % 1 1 4 , 7 7 3 1 1 8 . 3 % 3 4 7 0 . 0 % Un i v e r s i t y  of  Ar k a n s a s ,  Fa y e t t e v i l l e  (R a z o r b a c k  Tr a n s i t )   $2 , 2 7 4 , 7 5 3 3 1 . 3 % 1 9 9 0 . 0 % 7 5 , 1 0 2 4 2 . 8 % 1 8 1 0 . 0 % Th e  Ci t y  of  Bo w l i n g  Gr e e n / C o m m u n i t y  Ac t i o n  of  So u t h e r n  Ke n t u c k y  ( CA S K ) $ 9 7 8 , 0 7 7 7 0 . 4 % 6 4 0 . 0 % 5 0 , 0 0 0 4 . 9 % 1 5 2 5 . 0 % Sa n t a  Cr u z  M e tr o p o l i t a n  Tr a n s i t  Di s t r i c t  ( S C M T D ) $3 4 , 3 3 2 , 7 1 7 9 3 7 . 3 % 8 3 7 3 0 . 0 % 2 5 4 , 5 3 8 3 8 4 . 1 % 4 4 6 2 1 3 0 . 0 % Bl o o m i n g t o n ‐No r m a l  Pu b l i c  Tr a n s i t  Sy s t e m $7 , 5 3 0 , 1 6 7 1 2 7 . 5 % 2 3 1 3 0 . 0 % 1 2 9 , 1 0 7 1 4 5 . 6 % 4 6 1 3 0 . 0 % SL O  Tr a n s i t $3 , 3 0 9 , 6 7 4 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 . 0 % 5 2 , 5 7 6 0 . 0 % 2 0 0 . 0 % So u r c e :  Na t i o n a l  Tr a n s i t  Da t a b a s e  20 1 3  Da t a Op e r a t i n g  Ex p e n s e s P e a k  Ve h i c l e s S e r v i c e  Ar e a  Po p u l a t i o n S e r v i c e  Ar e a  (S q  mi ) Av e  % Di f f e r e n c e   fr o m  SL O 94 . 6 % 16 . 9 % 41 . 4 % 75 . 3 % 74 . 8 % 89 . 5 % 25 1 . 7 % 70 . 1 % 63 . 8 % 61 1 . 6 % 80 . 5 % 11 9 . 5 % 20 . 0 % 57 . 5 % 25 4 . 1 % 95 . 8 % 43 . 5 % 35 . 1 % 10 4 5 . 4 % 13 3 . 3 % 0. 0 % ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 90 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 74 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan      Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transit Authority (NAIPTA) – NAIPTA fixed  routes, referred to as the “Mountain Line,” and “Mountain Link,” are operated by the City  of Flagstaff and Coconino County. The fixed routes service the city of Flagstaff and  surrounding areas, with direct lines to and from the NAU Campus.     Terre Haute Transit Utility (THTU) – THTU, operated by the City of Terre Haute, Indiana,  serves Terre Haute, including the campuses of Indiana State University and Ivy Tech.      City of St. George (SunTran) – The City of St. George operates SunTran throughout St.  George, with service to Dixie State University.     Billings Metropolitan Transit (Billings MET Transit) – The City of Billings, Montana offers  MET Transit, which serves downtown Billings and outlying areas.     The City of Bowling Green/Community Action of Southern Kentucky (CASK) – The non‐ profit group Community Action of Southern Kentucky operates transit services within the  city limits of Bowling Green, Kentucky. Encompassed within the city transit system, “Go  College Life” provides transit service to Western Kentucky University and numerous  technical and community colleges.     Bloomington‐Normal Public Transit System – Otherwise referred to as “Connect Transit,”  Bloomington‐Normal Public Transit System is a joint transit effort provided by the City of  Bloomington and the Town of Normal (both located in Indiana). The service operates within  the limits of Bloomington and Normal, with several routes specifically targeting Indiana  State University.    PEER ANALYSIS    Tables 29 and 30 illustrate key performance indicators for the peer systems alongside SLO  Transit.     System Productivity    Passengers per VRH    SLO Transit’s passengers per VRH figure is higher than any of the peer systems, as shown in  Figure 17. The number of passengers per VRH among the peer systems ranges from 7.48  (Community Action of Southern Kentucky or CASK) to 32.08 (Northern Arizona  Intergovernmental Public Transit Authority or NAIPTA) averaging at 17.18. SLO Transit’s average  passengers per VRH is 34.05, nearly double that of the peer average.        ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 91   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 75     TA B L E  29 :  SL O  Tr a n s i t  Pe e r  Pe r f o r m a n c e  In d i c a t o r s Ci t y  of  P o c a t e l l o  ‐   Po c a t e l l o  Re g i o n a l   Tr a n s i t  (P R T ) Pu e b l o   Tr a n s i t   Sy s t e m  (P T ) No r t h e r n  Ar i z o n a   In t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l   P u b l i c  Tr a n s i t   Au t h o r i t y   (N A I P T A ) Te r r e  Ha u t e   Tr a n s i t  U t i l i t y   (T H T U ) Ci t y  of  St .   Ge o r g e   (S u n T r a n ) Bi l l i n g s   Me t r o p o l i t a n   Tr a n s i t  ( B i l l i n g s   ME T  Tr a n s i t ) Th e  Ci t y  of  Bo w l i n g   Gr e e n / C o m m u n i t y   Ac t i o n  of  So u t h e r n   Ke n t u c k y  (C A S K ) Bl o o m i n g t o n ‐ No r m a l  P u b l i c   Tr a n s i t  Sy s t e m Pa s s e n g e r s  pe r  VR H 7. 7 2 2 5 . 4 2 3 2 . 0 8 7 . 5 3 1 9 . 2 2 1 5 . 9 0 7. 4 8 22 . 1 0 Pa s s e n g e r s  pe r  VR M 0. 5 1 1. 8 4 2. 6 3 0 . 8 1 1 . 7 8 1 . 0 6 0. 5 9 1. 5 4 Pa s s e n g e r  Tr i p s  pe r  Ca p i t a 5. 1 7 9. 4 8 2 5 . 6 0 6 . 9 0 6 . 3 6 5 . 3 1 2. 1 5 15 . 5 6 Op e r a t i n g  Co s t  pe r  VR H $4 8 . 2 4 $ 9 8 . 5 4 $ 9 1 . 4 0 $ 4 3 . 7 7 $ 4 8 . 3 9 $ 9 5 . 6 7 $ 6 8 . 0 9 $ 8 2 . 8 3 Op e r a t i n g  Co s t  pe r  VR M $3 . 2 1 $ 7 . 1 4 $ 7 . 4 9 $ 4 . 6 9 $ 4 . 4 8 $ 6 . 4 0 $5 . 4 1 $5 . 7 8 Op e r a t i n g  Co s t  pe r  Pa s s e n g e r $ 6 . 2 5 $ 3 . 8 8 $ 2 . 8 5 $ 5 . 8 1 $ 2 . 5 2 $ 6 . 0 2 $9 . 1 0 $3 . 7 5 Fa r e b o x  Re c o v e r y  Ra t i o 5. 2 % 1 3 . 1 % 2 5 . 8 % 8 . 4 % 1 4 . 6 % 8 . 8 % 5. 6 % 16 . 6 % Su b s i d y  pe r  Pa s s e n g e r $5 . 9 3 $ 3 . 3 7 $ 2 . 1 1 $ 5 . 3 3 $ 2 . 1 5 $ 5 . 4 9 $8 . 5 8 $3 . 1 3 Av e r a g e  Fa r e $0 . 3 3 $ 0 . 5 1 $ 0 . 7 4 $ 0 . 4 9 $ 0 . 3 7 $ 0 . 5 3 $0 . 5 1 $0 . 6 2 So u r c e :  Na t i o n a l  Tr a n s i t  Da t a b a s e  20 1 3  Da t a Pe e r  Sy s t e m ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 92 LSC Transpo Page 76        TABL E Passeng Passeng Passeng Operatin Operatin Operatin Farebox  Subsidy  Averag e Source: Nat ortation Consulta E 30: SLO T g ers  per VRH g ers  per VRM g er Trips  per C ng Cost per VR ng Cost per VR ng Cost per Pa Recovery Rati per Passenge e Fare per Pas s tional Transit Datab ants, Inc. / AECO   Transit Peer P Min 7 0 apita 2 RH$4 RM $ assenger $ io 5 r $ s enger $ base 2013 Data OM, Inc. r Group Sta Peer  nimum Pe Maxi 7.48 32 0.51 2 2.15 25 43.77 $9 $3.21 $7 $2.52 $9 5.2% 25 $2.11 $8 $0.33 $0 atistics eer  imum Pe Aver 2.08 17. .63 1.3 5.60 9.5 8.54 $72 7.49 $5. 9.10 $5. 5.8% 12. 8.58 $4. 0.74 $0. er  rage SLO  Trans .18 34.05 352 . 82 572 1 . 10 2.12 $101.5 .57 $8.40 .02 $2.98 3% 19.8% .51 $2.39 .51 $0.59 SLO Transit Sh it SLO to  Average Peer 5 198.2% 2 209.3% 0 220.6% 57 140.8% 0 150.8% 8 59.4% %161.4% 9 53.0% 9 115.6% hort Range Trans e  SLO Trans Ranking (1 = Highe %1 %1 %2 %9 %9 3 %2 3 %3 sit Plan     sit  g  est)      ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 93   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 77   Passengers per VRM    SLO Transit’s average passengers per VRM figure is 2.82, which is over twice the peer average  of 1.35 passengers per VRM. Out of the systems analyzed, SLO has the highest number of  passengers per VRM, with NAIPTA coming in second at 2.63.     Passenger‐Trips per Capita    The average peer number of passenger‐trips per capita is 9.57, which is less than half that of  SLO Transit’s annual average of 21.1 passenger‐trips per capita. The peer passenger‐trips per  capita range from 2.15 (CASK) to 25.6 (NAIPTA).    System Productivity Summary    SLO Transit’s system productivity far surpasses the peer system averages in all three  productivity measures. These figures suggest that SLO Transit is successfully generating  ridership and providing resources in a useful manner.     Economic Efficiency    Operating Cost per VRH    Among the peer systems, the operating cost per vehicle revenue hour ranges from $43.77  (Terre Haute Transit Utility or THTU) to $98.54 (Pueblo Transit System or PT), averaging at  $72.12. SLO Transit’s operating cost per VRH is higher than any peer system, and a substantial  40.8 percent above the average, at $101.57.    Operating Cost per VRM    The peer operating costs per VRM vary from $3.21 (Pocatello Regional Transit or PRT) to $7.49  (Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transit Authority or NAIPTA), averaging at $5.57.  SLO Transit’s operating cost per VRM of $8.40 is the highest out of all nine systems analyzed.    Economic Efficiency Summary    SLO Transit’s operating cost per VRH and VRM is higher than any other peer systems. This  suggests it may be useful to further examine how to more efficiently operate the system.     Economic Productivity Summary    Operating Cost per Passenger    SLO Transit’s operating cost of $2.98 per passenger is significantly lower than the peer average  of $5.02 per passenger. The lowest operating cost per passenger is $2.52 (City of St. George  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 94 LSC Transpo Page 78  SunTran) lowest co   Farebox    Farebox  25.8 perc average    Subsidy p   SLO Tran $4.51, as whereas      Average    SLO Tran range fro ortation Consulta ), whereas th ost per passe Recovery Ra recovery rat cent (NAIPTA 12.3 percent per Passenge nsit’s subsidy s shown in Fi the highest  Fare  nsit’s average om $0.33 (PR ants, Inc. / AECO he highest o enger of all s atio  tios among t A). With a fa t farebox rec er‐Trip  y per passen igure 18. NA peer subsid e fare of $0. RT) to $0.74  OM, Inc. operating cos systems ana the peer syst arebox recov covery ratio ger‐trip of $ AIPTA has a p y per passen 59 is slightly (NAIPTA).  st per passe alyzed.   tems vary su very ratio of   among pee $2.39 is 47.0  particularly l nger‐trip of  y above the p nger is $9.10 ubstantially,  19.8 percen ers.  percent low low subsidy  $8.58 belon peer averag SLO Transit Sh 0 (CASK). SLO  from 5.2 pe nt, SLO far su wer than the per passeng gs to CASK.  e of $0.51. T hort Range Trans O has the th ercent (PRT)  urpasses the e peer averag ger‐trip of $2 The peer far sit Plan hird‐ to  e  ge of  2.11,    es       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 95   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 79     Economic Productivity Summary    Compared to the peer averages, SLO Transit excels in terms of operating cost per passenger,  farebox recovery ratio, and subsidy per passenger‐trip. While SLO Transit’s average fare is  slightly above average, high system productivity levels and economic productivity levels suggest  that the fare level is not hindering transit participation.    PEER FARE REVIEW    An important frame of reference when considering fares is the fares charged by other similar  “peer” transit systems. On SLO Transit, regular one‐way fares are $1.25 and discounted fares  (applicable to persons age 65 to 79 and/or with a disability) are $0.60. As shown in Table 31,  the average regular one‐way fare among the SLO Transit peer systems is $1.31 and the average  peer discounted fare is $0.63. Both the regular and discount SLO fares are 5 percent below the  peer average. Terre Haute Transit Utility and the City of Bowling Green are the two peer transit  agencies with higher fares than SLO Transit ($1.75 and $2.00 respectively).     Information on the pass options for SLO Transit and the peer systems is also illustrated in Table  31. While SLO Transit offers day passes, only half of the peer systems include a day pass option.  The peer day passes average $2.69, ranging from $2.00 ‐ $3.75. SLO Transit’s local day pass  costs $3.00, which falls within the peer range, and 12 percent above the average. The majority  of systems include multi‐ride passes. SLO Transit offers a 16‐ride pass, and the peer passes  include 4 to 40 rides. All of the peer systems provide multiple‐day passes, including 10‐day, 31‐ day, 35‐day, monthly, and semester passes. SLO Transit includes the greatest variety of  multiple‐day passes, with 3‐day, 5‐day, 7‐day, and 31‐day passes. Five of the systems include  “monthly” passes, and four of the systems (including SLO Transit) offer 30‐35 day passes. The  peer monthly (including 30‐35 day) passes range from $22.00 ‐ $45.00, averaging at $34.00. SLO  Transit’s local 31‐day pass costs $37.00, exceeding the peer average by 9 percent.     Another way to consider the monthly pass rate is to identify the percent discount that monthly  pass users receive in comparison with the base fare, assuming that the pass user rides one  round‐trip per month on 22 work/school days per year. As shown in the right‐most column of  Table 31, SLO Transit currently provides a 33 percent discount to regular monthly pass user,  which is a smaller discount than the 40 percent average of the peers. Finally, Table 31 indicates  that all of the peer systems provide discounts for students of the major college/university, with  half providing free transit rides throughout the system.     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 96 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 80 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan         TA B L E  31 :  SL O  Tr a n s i t  Fa r e  St r u c t u r e  Pe e r  An a l y s i s Re g u l a r   Fa r e Di s c o u n t   Fa r e %  Di s c o u n t Da y   Pa s s Pu n c h   Pa s s Mu l t i d a y    Pa s s Da y  Pa s s   Fa r e  (R e g ) Mo n t h l y  Pa s s   Fa r e  (R e g ) Mo n t h l y  Pa s s   % Di s c o u n t ( 1 ) Ci t y  of  Po c a t e l l o  ‐   Po c a t e l l o  Re g i o n a l   Tr a n s i t  (P R T ) $1 . 0 0   $0 . 5 0   50 % Y4 0 ‐ri d e m o n t h l y $ 2 . 0 0   $2 5 . 0 0   43 % Fr e e  on  ca m p u s ,  50 %   Di s c o u n t  of f ‐ca m p u s Pu e b l o  Tr a n s i t  Sy s t e m  ( P T ) $ 1 . 2 5   $0 . 6 0   52 % Y2 2 ‐ri d e 3 5 ‐da y   $3 . 7 5   $4 4 . 0 0   20 % 2 0 %  Di s c o u n t 10 ‐da y 30 ‐da y Te r r e  Ha u t e  Tr a n s i t  Ut i l i t y  ( T H T U ) $ 1 . 7 5   $0 . 8 5   51 % N1 4 ‐ri d e 3 1 ‐da y ‐‐ $4 5 . 0 0   42 % Fr e e  Fa r e Se m e s t e r 32 % Mo n t h l y Bi l l i n g s  Me t r o p o l i t a n  Tr a n s i t  (B i l l i n g s   ME T  Tr a n s i t ) $1 . 2 5   $0 . 5 0   60 % N1 0 ‐ri d e M o n t h l y ‐‐ $2 2 . 0 0   60 % 32 %  Di s c o u n t  on   Mo n t h l y  Pa s s  On l y 4 ‐ri d e 55 % 9 ‐ri d e Bl o o m i n g t o n ‐No r m a l  Pu b l i c  Tr a n s i t   Sy s t e m $1 . 0 0   $0 . 5 0   50 % N ‐‐ Mo n t h l y ‐‐ $2 9 . 0 0   34 % Fr e e  Fa r e Av e r a g e  Pe e r  Fa r e $ 1 . 3 1   $0 . 6 3   52 % ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ $2 . 6 9   $3 4 . 0 0   40 % ‐‐ SL O  Tr a n s i t  ( 2 ) $1 . 2 5 $ 0 . 6 0 5 2 % Y 1 6 ‐ri d e 3 ‐da y 5 ‐da y 7 ‐da y 31 ‐da y $3 . 0 0 $ 3 7 . 0 0 33 % Fr e e  Fa r e ‐  SL O  Tr a n s i t  % of  Pe e r  Av g 95 % 9 5 % 1 1 2 % 1 0 9 % 8 2 % ‐  SL O  Tr a n s i t  Ra n k i n g 33 4 4 6 So u r c e :  We b s i t e s  of  re s p e c t i v e  tr a n s i t  ag e n c i e s No t e  1:  Fo r  re g u l a r  ri d e r s  ma k i n g  44  on e ‐wa y  tr i p s  pe r  mo n t h . No t e  2:  Lo c a l  mo n t h l y  pa s s  ra t e .  Re g i o n a l  mo n t h l y  pa s s  al s o  av a i l a b l e  fo r  $6 4 . On e ‐Wa y  Fa r e s F a r e  Me d i a  Ty p e s  Of f e r e d $2 . 5 0   $3 0 . 0 0   $1 . 0 0   $0 . 5 0   50 % $2 . 5 0   N o r t h e r n  Ar i z o n a  In t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l   Pu b l i c  Tr a n s i t  Au t h o r i t y  (N A I P T A ) $3 7 . 0 0   Y1 0 ‐ri d e $1 . 2 5   $0 . 6 0   52 % Y ‐‐ Th e  Ci t y  of  Bo w l i n g  Gr e e n / C o m m u n i t y   Ac t i o n  of  So u t h e r n  Ke n t u c k y  (C A S K ) $2 . 0 0   $1 . 0 0   50 % Ci t y  of  St .  Ge o r g e  (S u n T r a n ) Mo n t h l y N$ 4 0 . 0 0   ‐‐ Fa r e  Di s c o u n t  fo r   St u d e n t s  of  Ma j o r   Co l l e g e ? 33 % Fr e e  Fa r e Fr e e  Fa r e 58 %  Di s c o u n t  on   Mo n t h l y  Pa s s  On l y Pa s s  Co s t s ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 97  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 81   Chapter 6  Service Alternatives Considered    This chapter presents a wide range of potential service alternatives for SLO Transit. Route  changes are first evaluated, including changes and combinations of the existing fixed routes.  Alternatives are next considered regarding the hours and seasons that various services are  provided.     It should be noted that this analysis does not consider significant changes to the Cal Poly  campus. Campus Administration is currently in the process of developing a Master Plan, which  presently is envisioned to reflect a growth in student population, provision of additional on‐ campus housing, possible closure of existing roadways, and a possible on‐campus shuttle. While  this Plan may well impact transit service strategies in the long term, at present it appears that  substantive implementation of the Master Plan will largely occur beyond the 5‐year plan period  of this SRTP.    ROUTES ALTERNATIVES     Routes 1 and 3     Routes 1 and 3 both serve the area southeast of downtown, and are best considered together.  These routes serve the Broad Street and Johnson Avenue corridors, as follows:     Route 1 consists of a counterclockwise loop, exiting downtown via Broad Street to the  south, heading east on Orcutt Road, and returning north to downtown via Augusta (south of  Bishop) and Johnson Avenue. This element is scheduled for 32 minutes of running time, and  is operated once per hour. (At present, it also serves Cal Poly over the remainder of the  hour, though this may change.) North of downtown, Route 1 serves the Foothill Boulevard  corridor and Sierra Vista Hospital, providing a direct connection between neighborhoods  between downtown and neighborhoods to the north without having to travel through the  Cal Poly campus.     Route 3 consists of a clockwise loop, exiting downtown via Johnson Avenue southbound,  traveling along Laurel and Orcutt Road to Tank Farm Road, traveling west on Tank Farm  Road and returning northbound via Broad Street. It is scheduled for 32 minutes of running  time, and is operated every 40 minutes.    Together, these routes provide bi‐directional service every 60 minutes in one direction and  every 40 minutes in the other as far south as Orcutt Road, and service every 40 minutes in one  direction as far south as Tank Farm Road. This service plan is generally effective (as measured  by factors such as passenger‐trips per vehicle‐hour), but does have some existing  disadvantages:    ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 98 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 82 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan      The bus stops on Tank Farm Road at Wavertree Street and Brookpine Drive are on the  opposite (north) side of the street from the adjacent residential neighborhoods, requiring  passengers to cross Tank Farm Road at an uncontrolled intersection, which is a busy (8,000  vehicles per day) and relatively high‐speed road.     Similarly, the stops serving Damon‐Garcia Sports Complex are on the opposite side of Broad  Street (though a controlled crosswalk is available at the Industrial Way signal).     The existing routes do not serve nearby transit generators, such as the residential areas and  employment centers east of the airport. (With a 60‐minute running time on Route 3, a loop  via Poinsettia Street, Fuller Road and Broad Street south of Tank Farm Road could be a  simple addition.)     There are only 41 boardings and 30 alightings on Route 1 north of downtown, most of  whom would still be able to access downtown on Route 4/5.    Before assessing route alternatives, it is useful to review potential developments in the vicinity  and their possible implications for transit service:     The Righetti Ranch/Jones Ranch area of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan encompasses the  undeveloped area north of eastern Tank Farm Road, between the Union Pacific Railroad on  the west and Orcutt Road on the east. The area is ultimately envisioned to be developed  with 286 single family homes and 87 multifamily homes, of which 49 would be low‐income  housing. A small proportion (approximately 10 percent) would be accessed via Orcutt Road  north of Righetti Hill, with the majority of development with access off of Tank Farm Road  just east of the rail tracks. This development would generate a modest level of transit  demand, which could be partially (though not wholly) served by a stop at the new access  intersection (proposed to consist of a roundabout) along Tank Farm Road. The initial  development phase of 212 units could be constructed over the next few years. Means of  providing transit service to this area is discussed below for each of the service options.     The Chevron Tank Farm area is located along both sides of Tank Farm Road, from Santa Fe  Road on the east to the existing development on the west. While a majority of this area is  proposed for environmental restoration and open space, there is a substantial area in the  eastern portion of this site slated for business park and service/ manufacturing uses.  Providing service to these transit trip generators would probably require implementation of  a cross‐town route. As development is probably beyond the 5‐year horizon of this SRTP, it is  not considered further.     The Margarita Specific Plan Area includes the area between South Higuera Street and Broad  Street, north of the Chevron Tank Farm area and south of the South Hills. It is planned for  up to 840 residences (of which 185 would be medium‐high or high density), along with a 28‐ acre business park. The key question with regards to the SRTP is timing of the extension of  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 99  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 83   Prado Road east to Broad Street and associated development, which is currently uncertain.  Once developed, this could be a moderate transit trip generator. Potential means of serving  this development, once it occurs, are discussed below.    Four options for changes to Routes 1 and 3 are presented below. All would require two buses  to operate (one on each route), and would provide service every 30 minutes on Route 1 and  every 60 minutes on Route 3.    Alternative 1: Two One‐Way Opposite Loops, With Route 3 Extension South on Broad Street    This alternative is shown in Figure 19, modified to only serve neighborhoods in downtown,  since ridership north of downtown is relatively low (only approximately 8 percent of total Route  1 ridership) but generates almost 50 percent of total route costs, and this area is served by  multiple routes. This proposal provides bi‐directional service along Broad Street south of Orcutt  Road while discontinuing service along Orcutt Road southeast of Johnson Avenue and along  Tank Farm Road east of Poinsettia Street (at least in the near term prior to Righetti Ranch  development). It adds service along Fuller Road and Poinsettia Street, which is close to  employment sites and residential neighborhoods. This alternative would result in the  elimination of three bus stops along Tank Farm Road: at Wavertree Street, Brookpine Drive,  and Hollyhock Way. At present, the boarding and alighting data presented in Chapter 2  indicates that these stops are not highly used, combining for a total of 8 boardings and 13  alightings per day. The busier bus stop at the intersection of Poinsettia Street and Tank Farm  Road, which serves 10 boardings and 38 alightings per day, would need to be relocated (such as  to along the west side of Poinsettia Street south of Tank Farm Road)  as it would no longer be  on the route.  This route would run on a counter‐clockwise loop to complement Route 3, which  provides service in the clockwise direction. Route 1 passengers north of downtown would have  service along other routes (4 and 6A); however service to downtown may be less direct or may  require a transfer. There are 41 boardings and 30 alightings per day north of downtown that  would be impacted.    The current cycle time for Route 3 is 40 minutes today. For this alternative, the running time  could be 45 minutes; however, the cycle time should be 60 minutes allowing for a clock face  headway (and for future potential expansion). Route 1 would operate with one vehicle  providing service every 30 minutes.    An eastward extension on Tank Farm Road between Poinsettia Street and the Righetti Ranch  access drive could serve the Righetti Ranch development. (A roundabout at this access point on  Righetti Road would provide a convenient means of turning the bus around.) Similarly, a  diversion on Route 3 approximately ¼ west on extended Prado Road (to another roundabout)  could serve the eastern portion of the Margarita Specific Plan area. Service to Tank Farm Road  east of the Union Pacific railroad tracks would be eliminated and replaced with a turnaround  through the neighborhood south of Tank Farm. Specifically, the bus would proceed south along  Broad Street, east on Tank Farm Road, south on Poinsettia Street, and west on Fuller Road  before returning north on Broad Street. There would be an anticipated net ridership gain if   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 100 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 84 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          Fuller R d . Poins e t t iaSt. S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV227 UV227 UV227 Prado Rd Tank Farm Rd T o r o S t H i g u e r a S t O s o s S t S a n L u i s D r S a n t a R o s a S t J o h n s o n A v e H i g u e r a S t Monte r e y S t C h o r r o S t Hi g u e r a S t TankFarm Rd Marsh S t Orcutt Rd Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors f f f f f f Future Extensionto Margarita AreaSpecific Plan Future Extensionto Roundabout atRighetti Ranch Route 1 Alternative 1 Route 3 Alternative 1 Existing Route 1 Existing Route 3 d d d d 0 0.5 10.25 Miles I Figure Routes 1 and 3 Alternative 1 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 101  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 85   implemented, as this neighborhood has relatively high potential transit demand and as the  extension would serve numerous employers. With increased ridership, the Route would also  increase in revenue. It would be within a convenient ¼ mile walk from the employment center  east of the airport. It is envisioned that this Route would run as a clockwise version of Route 1  with a southern extension. The bus stops along Tank Farm Road that will no longer be served  have 21 boardings and alightings per day, which is only 3% percent of total daily route  ridership.    A potential option with an extension to Route 3 would be to offer on‐call service to the San Luis  Obispo Airport on key days around the beginning and end of the Cal Poly quarter sessions for  students traveling by air. Due to the poorly connected neighborhoods and limited pedestrian  access and lack of space needed to operate large buses in the neighborhoods, a fixed route to  the airport is not recommended. However, an employer funded shuttle for mid‐day travelers to  access downtown could be considered.    Ridership would be increased by the additional service frequency on Route 1, additional service  area, and improved connections associated with consistent clock headways. However, ridership  would be reduced due to the elimination of some existing stops, the lower service frequency on  Route 3, and the need to transfer for persons currently riding Route 1 through downtown. As  shown in Table 32, the net impact of this alternative would be an increase of 4,200 passenger‐ trips per year. This would result in an increase in cash fares of $1,000 per year. Operating costs  would increase slightly, by $2,000. Overall annual subsidy would be increased by $1,000  annually.    Advantages     Expands service availability by providing Route 1 service every 30 minutes, rather than  hourly with one bus. While Route 3 would be reduced from every 40 minutes to hourly,  the total number of bus runs would increase from 29 per day to 33.   Service as far south as Fuller Road would provide transit access to residential and  employment areas near the airport. This neighborhood has relatively high transit  potential characteristics.   Consistent clock headways would be easier for passengers to remember and use.   The additional layover time on Route 3 would improve on‐time performance.   A stop more convenient to Damon‐Garcia Sports Complex could be provided.   The existing low productivity portion of Route 3 between Johnson/Orcutt and  Poinsettia/Tank Farm would be eliminated.   Route 1 will no longer serve unproductive segments north of downtown. Current Route  1 riders will still be able to access downtown on Routes 4/5.   Provides evening service on both S. Broad Street and Johnson Avenue in the weekday  evenings (Route 3).       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 102 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 86 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          TA B L E  32 :  SL O  Tr a n s i t  Se r v i c e  Al t e r n a t i v e s  Su m m a r y Al t e r n a t i v e Se r v i c e  Ho u r s S e r v i c e  Mi l e s O p e r a t i n g  Co s t Ri d e r s h i p Fa r e   Re v e n u e s Op e r a t i n g   Su b s i d y Ch a n g e  in  Pe a k   Bu s e s ‐‐ ‐‐ 1 2  On e ‐Wa y  Op p o s i t e  Lo o p s ,  Wi t h  Ro u t e  3  Ex t e n s i o n  S  on   Br o a d  St 2, 4 8 0 4 8 0 $ 2 , 0 0 0 4 , 2 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 0 0 2 Bi ‐Di r e c t i o n  Ro u t e s  (R o u t e  1  on  Br o a d  St ,  Ro u t e  3  on   Jo h n s o n  Av e ) 1, 6 0 0 1 4 , 8 1 0 $ 6 2 , 1 0 0 ‐8, 1 0 0 ‐$1 , 9 0 0 $ 6 4 , 0 0 0 0 3 Bi ‐Di r e c t i o n  Ro u t e s  (R o u t e  1  on  Jo h n s o n  Av e  an d  Ro u t e  3   on  Br o a d  St ) 1, 60 0 ‐4, 4 7 0 ‐$1 8 , 7 0 0 3 , 9 0 0 $ 9 0 0 ‐$1 9 , 6 0 0 0 4 R e v e r s e  Ex i s t i n g  Ro u t e s 1, 0 1 0 5 , 4 3 0 $ 2 2 , 8 0 0 2 2 , 7 0 0 $ 5 , 2 0 0 $ 1 7 , 6 0 0 0 1M i n o r  Re v i s i o n  to  Se r v e  Ne w  De v e l o p m e n t 48 0 ‐4, 4 5 0 ‐$1 8 , 6 0 0 ‐15 , 2 0 0 ‐$3 , 6 0 0 ‐$1 5 , 0 0 0 0 2 La r g e  1 ‐Wa y  Lo o p  on  Hi g u e r a  St ,  Lo s  Os o s  Va l l e y  Rd  an d   Ma d o n n a  Rd 48 0 ‐19 0 ‐$8 0 0 ‐10 , 4 0 0 ‐$2 , 4 0 0 $ 1 , 6 0 0 0 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1 Co m b i n e  Ro u t e  4  an d  Ro u t e  2  an d  Op e r a t e  Bo t h  Wa y s  on   Hi g u e r a  St ,  Lo s  Os o s  Va l l e y  Rd  an d  Ma d o n n a  Rd ‐6, 7 7 0 ‐55 , 3 3 0 ‐$2 3 1 , 8 0 0 ‐16 , 8 0 0 ‐$3 , 6 0 0 ‐$2 2 8 , 2 0 0 ‐1 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1A Re v i s e  Ro u t e  4  to  2 ‐Wa y  Se r v i c e  on  Ma d o n n a  Ro u t e  an d   Re v i s e  Ro u t e  5  to  Se r v e  Ca l i f o r n i a  Bl v d  ‐   Ho u r l y  Rt  4 ‐3, 2 9 0 ‐38 , 7 6 0 ‐$1 6 2 , 4 0 0 ‐10 , 5 0 0 ‐$1 , 4 0 0 ‐$1 6 1 , 0 0 0 ‐1 1B Re v i s e  Ro u t e  4  to  2 ‐Wa y  Se r v i c e  on  Ma d o n n a  Ro u t e  an d   Re v i s e  Ro u t e  5  to  Se r v e  Ca l i f o r n i a  Bl v d  ‐   Ha l f ‐Hr l y  Rt  4 ‐27 8 5 , 3 9 6 $ 2 2 , 6 0 0 4 4 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 7 0 0 $ 1 6 , 9 0 0 0 2 C o m b i n e d  2 ‐Wa y  Ro u t e ‐2, 5 0 0 ‐97 , 8 0 0 ‐$4 0 9 , 8 0 0 ‐26 , 6 0 0 ‐$3 , 5 0 0 ‐$4 0 6 , 3 0 0 0 1T w o  Ha l f ‐Ho u r l y  Ro u t e s 0 ‐2, 0 1 0 ‐$8 , 4 0 0 5 , 1 0 0 $ 1 0 0 ‐$8 , 5 0 0 0 2O n e  Ho u r l y  Ro u t e  Pr o v i d i n g  30  Mi n u t e  Fr e q u e n c y 0 ‐2, 0 3 0 ‐$8 , 5 0 0 5 , 5 0 0 $ 1 0 0 ‐$8 , 6 0 0 0 3 Tw o  Ha l f ‐Ho u r l y  Ro u t e s  Pr o v i d i n g  Se r v i c e  Ev e r y  15   Mi n u t e s  in  Pe a k  Pe r i o d s 4, 4 1 0 3 4 , 8 0 0 $ 1 4 5 , 8 0 0 5 3 , 2 0 0 $ 6 0 0 $ 1 4 5 , 2 0 0 2 4 La r g e  Bi ‐Di r e c t i o n a l  Lo o p  Pr o v i d i n g  Se r v i c e  Ev e r y  20   Mi n u t e s  in  Pe a k  Pe r i o d s ‐29 0 7 7 , 8 5 0 $ 3 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 2 , 4 0 0 $ 5 0 0 $ 3 2 5 , 7 0 0 2 2, 7 3 0 3 1 , 8 05 $ 1 3 8 , 5 0 0 3 1 , 0 0 0 $ 3 0 0 $ 1 3 8 , 2 0 0 0 76 0 9 , 4 6 5 $ 3 9 , 6 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 0 0 $ 3 8 , 3 0 0 0 84 5 6 1 $ 1 1 , 4 0 0 1 , 3 0 0 $ 6 0 0 $ 1 0 , 8 0 0 0 3, 9 3 9 4 7 , 2 6 8 $ 1 9 8 , 1 0 0 1 3 , 9 0 0 $ 3 , 2 0 0 $ 1 9 4 , 9 0 0 1 R o u t e s   1 ‐ 3 Ex i s t i n g R o u t e   2 Pr o v i d e  Ev e n i n g  Se r v i c e  in  th e  Su m m e r Ex p a n d  Tr o l l e y  Se r v i c e  Un t i l  Mi d n i g h t  on  Fr i d a y s  an d  Sa t u r d a y s g Cr o s s t o w n  Ro u t e Ex t e n d  Ho u r s  of  Op e r a t i o n  Du r i n g  th e  Sc h o o l  Ye a r Ch a n g e  In  An n u a l  Se r v i c e Ex i s t i n g R o u t e   4 ‐ 5 R o u t e   6 g Ex i s t i n g R o u t e s   2 ‐ 4 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 103   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 87   Disadvantages     Three existing stops on eastern Tank Farm Road would no longer be served. These stops  currently serve a total of 21 boardings or alightings daily.   Operating subsidy increases slightly   Route 1 passengers may have less direct service to downtown.    Service frequency south of The Brickyard would be reduced from 40 minutes to 60  minutes.   People traveling between Foothill Boulevard and downtown will have a less direct trips  and some passengers would have to make additional transfers to complete their trip.    A sub‐alternative would be to add the extension south along Broad Street from Orcutt Road to  Fuller Road to Route 1, rather than Route 3. This would allow Route 3 to operate half‐hourly  service with one bus, but Route 1 would be too long for half‐hourly service and so would  become the hourly route. Operating costs and ridership would not differ.    Alternative 2 – Bi‐Directional Routes with Route 1 on Broad Street, Route 3 on Johnson Avenue    As shown in Figure 20, under this option Route 1 and 3 would both be converted to routes  operating in both directions along a single corridor, with a terminal loop at the end. Route 1  would focus on the Broad Street corridor between downtown and Orcutt Road, with a terminal  loop consisting of Orcutt Road, Johnson Avenue, Southwood Drive and Laurel Lane. Route 3  would focus on the Johnson Avenue, Orcutt Road and eastern Tank Farm Road corridors, with a  terminal loop along southern Broad Street, Fuller Road and Poinsettia Street. (This is essentially  the proposal from the previous Short Range Transit Plan.) Each route would require one bus.     The issue with this proposal is that there would be no service along Broad Street between  Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road, which includes generators such as the Marigold Center and  Damon‐Garcia Sports Fields. Each route would require one bus, with Route 1 completing its  cycle in 30 minutes while Route 3 would require close to 60 minutes. While a future extension  of Route 1 could be considered to serve development at the Chevron property and the  Margarita Specific Plan area, this would extend Route 1’s cycle time and thereby require either  a second bus or reduction in service frequency. There are three stops on Broad Street that  would lose all service as part of this proposal which are located at Marigold Center, Capitolio  Way, and at Rockview Place that serves a total of 53 boardings and 21 alightings.    Operating costs would be increased by $62,100 annually under this alternative. The net impact  on ridership, considering both service frequency improvements and changes in service area, is a  decrease of 8,100 passenger‐trips per year, resulting in a decrease in fare revenues of $1,900  per year. The net impact on operating subsidy requirements would be an increase of $64,000  annually.       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 104 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 88 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV227 UV227 UV227 Prado Rd Tank Farm Rd T o r o S t H i g u e r a S t O s o s S t S a n L u i s D r S a n t a R o s a S t J o h n s o n A v e H i g u e r a S t Monte r e y S t C h o r r o S t TankFarm Rd Marsh S t Orcutt Rd Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors f f f f f f Route 1 Alternative Route 3 Alternative Existing Route 1 Existing Route 3 d d d d d f Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org,and other contributors Fuller Rd . 0 0.5 10.25 Miles I Figure Routes 1 and 3 Alternative 2 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 105   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 89   Advantages     Serves eastern Tank Farm Road, including Righetti Ranch   Provides new service south of Tank Farm Road   Reduces out‐of‐direction travel for travel to/from areas south of Orcutt Road.   Improves overall service frequency, particularly along Broad Street north of Orcutt  Road.    Disadvantages     Most importantly, does not serve Broad Street between Orcutt Road and Tank Farm  Road.   Precludes potential for efficient future service to eastern end of Margarita Area Specific  Plan via extended Prado Road.   Puts more service on relatively low ridership segments of Orcutt Road and eastern Tank  Farm Road.   Without adding evening service, would result in lack of evening service along the Broad  Street corridor in the evenings during the academic year.   Relatively high mileage.    Alternative 3 – Bi‐Direction Routes, With Route 1 on Johnson Avenue and Route 3 on Broad  Street    This option is similar to the previous option, except that the routes would be reversed such that  Route 1 serves the Johnson Avenue corridor (as far south as Johnson/Orcutt) in both directions  while Route 3 serves the Broad Street corridor (as far south as Fuller Road) in both directions.  This is shown in Figure 21. The existing segment of Route 3 east of Poinsettia Drive and along  Orcutt south of Johnson Avenue would no longer be served, though once a roundabout is  provided on Tank Farm Road at the Righetti Ranch access point (just east of the rail tracks), this  route could be extended to serve a stop at this turn‐around point. In addition, the Route 1 stop  on Orcutt at Duncan would lose service. This alternative would require one bus per route. Net  impact on ridership would be an annual increase of 3,900. Reflecting lower vehicle‐miles  associated with these shorter routes, operating cost would be reduced by $18,700 per year.  Subtracting the increase in farebox revenue of $900, the net impact on operating subsidy  requirements would be a reduction of $19,600 per year.         Advantages     Serves both sides of Broad Street as far south as Tank Farm Road.   Provides new service south of Tank Farm Road.   Improves service frequency on Johnson Avenue corridor north of Orcutt Road from 40  minutes to 30 minutes.   Relatively low mileage.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 106 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 90 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan              S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV227 UV227 UV227 Prado Rd Tank Farm Rd T o r o S t H i g u e r a S t O s o s S t S a n L u i s D r S a n t a R o s a S t J o h n s o n A v e H i g u e r a S t Monte r e y S t C h o r r o S t TankFarm Rd Marsh S t Orcutt Rd Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors f f f f f f Future Extensionto Margarita AreaSpecific Plan Future Extensionto Roundabout atRighetti Ranch Route 1 Alternative Route 3 Alternative Existing Route 1 Existing Route 3 d d d d d d d d f f f f Fuller R d 0 0.5 10.25 Miles I Figure Routes 1 and 3 Alternative 3 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 107   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 91   Disadvantages     Does not serve eastern Tank Farm Road east of Poinsettia Lane in the short term or east  of the Righetti Road roundabout in the long‐term (after construction of this  roundabout).   Service frequency on Broad Street reduced from current 30 minutes (north of Orcutt)  and 40 minutes (south of Orcutt) to 60 minutes.   The existing stop at Orcutt/Duncan would no longer be served. This stop on Route 1  currently serves 23 daily boardings or alightings. The nearest remaining stop is a ¼ mile  walk in either direction.   Without adding evening service, would result in lack of evening service along the  Johnson Avenue corridor in the evenings during the academic year.   Relatively high mileage.    Alternative 4 – Reverse Existing Routes    A final alternative for Routes 1 and 3 would be to effectively reverse the directions of the  current Route 1 and Route 3, maintaining service with one bus per route. The routes would also  be designed to address one‐way streets or to avoid unnecessary relocations of bus stops to the  opposite side of the street, as shown in Figure 22. Route 1 (excluding the current segment  north of downtown) would operate on 30‐minute cycles, while Route 3 would remain at the  current 45 minute headway.     This would increase annual operating costs by $22,800. Overall, ridership would be increased by  an estimated 22,700 passenger‐trips per year. Subtracting the change in fare revenues of 5,200,  annual operating subsidies would be increased by $17,600 annually.    Advantages     This would put the stops along eastern Tank Farm Road on the same side of the street  as the existing residences (a long‐standing issue).   Provides new service south of Tank Farm Road.   Maintains good service frequency on both Broad Street and Johnson Avenue north of  Orcutt.   Continues to serve all existing stop locations (though some stops would need to be  relocated across the street or around the corner).   Provides evening service on both S. Broad Street and Johnson Avenue in the weekday  evenings (Route 3).       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 108 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 92 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o UV227 UV227 UV227 Tank Farm Rd T o r o S t H i g u e r a S t O s o s S t S a n L u i s D r S a n t a R o s a S t J o h n s o n A v e H i g u e r a S t Monte r e y S t C h o r r o S t TankFarm Rd Marsh S t Orcutt Rd Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors f f f f f Future Extensionto Margarita AreaSpecific Plan Route 1 Alternative Route 3 Alternative Existing Route 1 Existing Route 3 d d d d f Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org,and other contributors 0 0.5 10.25 Miles I Figure Routes 1 and 3 Alternative 4 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 109   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 93   Disadvantages     Passengers would have to cross the street to access Marigold Center. This is a relatively  busy bus stop which would no longer have direct service, with 37 boardings and 10  alightings per day.    The relatively busy stop at Capitolio Way (24 passenger boardings or alightings per day)  as well as the stop at Rockview (3 boardings or alightings per day) would no longer be  served. Note that there is no protected crossing of Broad Street at this location to  provide access to a stop on the west side of Broad.   The cost of relocating stops could be substantial.   Existing on‐time performance problems on Route 3 would not be addressed.    Route 2     Route 2 is a currently a straightforward arterial corridor route along Higuera Street radiating  southwest from downtown San Luis Obispo going as far south as Suburban Road. One bus is  operated on a 40‐minute frequency. A new homeless services center which combines the Prado  Day Center and overnight Maxine Lewis Center is expected to be completed in 2016 and will  require direct service along Route 2. All alternatives discussed below would provide service to  this new facility.    Alternative 1 – Minor Revision to Serve New Development    This alternative would simply extend Route 2 to serve the 150‐acre planned neighborhood of  Avila Ranch that will be built east of Vachell Lane and north of Buckley Road (just south of the  existing RTA facility). The revised route is shown in Figure 23. This development is proposed to  include 700 homes and 35,000 square feet of commercial space. Although this development is  still in the planning stages, it would be prudent to account for the potential for future growth in  this area. The cycle time with layover and recovery would be increased from 40 minutes to 60  minutes. This would resolve on‐time performance issues, and ensure that all Route 2 trips will  have convenient transfers to other services, and ensure that the operator break times required  under Wage Order 9 can be provided by increasing operator break times. All existing Route 2  bus stops would continue to be served.    This would reduce annual operating costs by $18,600. Excluding ridership from potential new  development, this alternative would reduce ridership by 15,200 annual passenger‐trips.  Considering the loss in fare revenues of $3,600, annual operating subsidies would be reduced  by $15,000.    Advantages     Expands service area, when warranted.   Maintains service to existing stops.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 110 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 94 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     £¤101 d d d d d d d d S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV227 UV1 UV227 UV227 UV227 Madonn a Ave Elk s L n Madonn a R d Farm Rd Tank Farm Rd L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d Higuer a St Tank Farm Rd C h o r r o S t Hig u e r a S t S a n L u i s D r Prado R d T o r o S t Ca l i f o r n i a Bl v d Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t J o h n s o n A v e Orcutt RdMado n n a R d C h o r r o S t Hig u e r a S t Monte r e y S t L o s O s o s V a ll e y R d Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors 0 0.5 10.25 Miles I Figure 23Route 2 Alternative 1 Route 2 Alternative Existing Route 2 Future ExtensionTo Serve AvilaRanch ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 111   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 95    Improves on‐time performance, and ability to provide driver breaks.   “Clock headways” are easier for passengers to remember and provide consistent  transfers to other routes.    Disadvantages     Reduces service frequency from every 40 minutes to every hour.   Results in a reduction in ridership, until new development generates additional  ridership.    Alternative 2: Large 1‐Way Loop on Higuera Street, Los Osos Valley Rd and Madonna Road    Between downtown and the intersection of Higuera Street and South Street, Route 2 would  operate along the alignment of Routes 4/5 along South Street, Santa Barbara Avenue and Santa  Rosa Street, as shown in Figure 24. This would allow Routes 4 and 5 to have a more direct trip  into downtown, thereby increasing the reliability of those routes. South of South Street, Route  2 could operate as a one‐way loop that would connect Higuera Street directly to Madonna  Plaza. This loop would largely operate in the clockwise direction in order to serve the Prado Day  Center. Prior to Avila Ranch development, it would serve the current route via Tank Farm Road,  Cross Street, Short Street and Suburban. Once Avila Ranch is developed, it would operate a  small counterclockwise loop in the new development, allowing the left turn back onto South  Higuera Street to occur at the Suburban Street signal. This routing would serve the Lower Los  Osos Valley Road and Auto Parkway areas, relieving pressure on Routes 4 and 5. This would  increase coverage in the southwest portion of San Luis Obispo and provide service to the Auto  Parkway/Los Osos Valley area so Routes 4 and 5 would no longer need to serve this area. This  route would have a service frequency of every 60 minutes. Service could continue to operate  with one bus.    Ridership would be benefitted by expanding service along Los Osos Valley Road and along  Madonna Road, as well as by providing a quick one‐way connection between the South Higuera  Street area and Los Osos Valley Road/Madonna Road. On the other hand, some passengers  would have a longer in‐vehicle travel time in one direction or the other, due to the relatively  large one‐way loop, and the reduced service frequency would also reduce ridership. Overall,  this alternative is estimated to reduce ridership by 10,400 passenger‐trips per year.     This alternative would result in a slight reduction in operating costs, of $800 per year. The  ridership drop would reduce fare revenues by $2,400, resulting in a net increase in annual  operating subsidy of $1,600.       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 112 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 96 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     £¤101 d d d d d d d d S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV227 UV1 UV227 UV227 UV227 Madonn a Ave Elk s L n Madonn a R d Farm Rd Tank Farm Rd L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d Higuer a St Tank Farm Rd C h o r r o S t Hig u e r a S t S a n L u i s D r Prado R d T o r o S t Ca l i f o r n i a Bl v d Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t J o h n s o n A v e Orcutt RdMado n n a R d C h o r r o S t Hig u e r a S t Monte r e y S t L o s O s o s V a ll e y R d Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors 0 0.55 1.10.275 Miles I Figure 24Route 2 Alternative 2 Existing Route 2 Route 2 Alternative Future ExtensionTo Serve AvilaRanch ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 113   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 97   Advantages     Allows for a reduction in running time on Routes 4 and 5, increasing reliability.   Provides a new connection in one direction across a portion of the southern portion of  the city.   Expands service area to Avila Ranch, and to Los Osos Valley Road between South  Higuera and Auto Park from the Higuera Street corridor.    Disadvantages     Would force passengers coming from the southern portion of Higuera Street to travel  through Los Osos Valley Road, Madonna Road, and Madonna Plaza before returning into  downtown, increasing travel time.   Would reduce the number of buses per hour on South Street and Santa Barbara Avenue  from two in each direction to one in each direction.   Would reduce the service frequency on Los Osos Valley Road from 30 minutes to 60  minutes, and eliminate service to stops on the southwest side of this roadway (including  Irish Hills Plaza).   Would require passengers traveling from the South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue areas  to Cal Poly to transfer in downtown.   With longer length and running time, this would not provide an adequate driver break  to help conform to Wage Order Nine.    Routes 2 and 4    Another alternative involving changes to Route 2 would also include revisions to Route 4. As  discussed in more detail below, Route 4 is currently the clockwise element of the Route 4/5  pair, which uses up to 4 buses to provide half‐hourly bi‐directional service around a large hour‐ long loop. As shown in Figure 25, the existing Route 4 could be eliminated and one of these  buses combined with Route 2. The resulting loop would be similar to the Route 2 Alternative 2  routing discussed above, except that it would operate in both directions around the  Madonna/Los Osos Valley Road/Higuera loop. It would also stay on the Higuera corridor to  downtown. Two buses would be used to operate bi‐directional hourly service. Also considering  Route 5, the same level of service (four buses per hour) would be operated along the Madonna  Road corridor, though the buses per hour on the Foothill Boulevard corridor would be reduced  from 4 to 2. This segment of Routes 4 and 5, however, generates less than 2 percent of total  ridership on these routes.    As a sub‐option, one of the two Route 5 buses could operate in the clockwise direction (the  Route 4 direction), providing hourly Route 5 and existing Route 4 service.     Ridership would be reduced by the reduction in service frequency between Descanso Street  and Patricia Street, the reduced frequency of relatively quick trips between the Los Osos Valley   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 114 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 98 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV227 UV1 UV227 UV227 UV227 UV1 E l k s L n Madonn a R d Sa n L u i s D r Hig u e r a S t Prado R d Lo s O s o s V a l l e y R d T o r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t F o o t h i l l B l v d L o s O s o s V alle y R d C h o r r o S t L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d C h o r r o S t Hig u e r a S t Monte r e y S t C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Tank Farm Rd Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors c c c c c c c c c Route 2 and 4 AlternativeExsiting Route 2Exisitng Route 4 c c 0 0.6 1.20.3 Miles I Figure Route 2 and 4 Alternative 1 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 115   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 99   Road area and Cal Poly, the out‐of‐direction travel required on South Higuera Street, and the  increase in headway on South Higuera Street from 40 minutes to 60 minutes. While ridership  would also be generated by the new connection between the Los Osos Valley Road area and  South Higuera as well as the better connections in downtown associated with consistent hourly  headways, overall this option would reduce annual ridership by 16,800 passenger‐trips per  year.    This alternative would reduce the peak number of buses in operation by one. Considering the  reduction in vehicle‐miles and hours, annual operating costs would be reduced by 231,800. The  reduction in ridership would reduce fare revenues by $3,600, resulting in a net reduction in  operating subsidy of $228,200.    Advantages     Reduces the number of buses in operation by one and reduces operating subsidy  requirements.   Focuses resources on more productive corridors and away from unproductive areas.   Reduces traffic delays associated with turning around on LOVR.   Provides new opportunities for travel between the South Higuera area and LOVR.   Avoids out‐of‐direction travel on South Higuera Street.    Disadvantages     Reduces direct service frequency between LOVR and Cal Poly via Foothill Boulevard,  which has a shorter travel time than via downtown.   Reduces service frequency along South Street and Santa Barbara Avenue.   Reduction of service along Foothill corridor could increase overcrowding on Route 6A.    Routes 4 and 5     Routes 4 and 5 consist of a large bi‐directional loop serving Cal Poly and neighborhoods north  of downtown and southwest of downtown. This includes Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna  Road. Running time is scheduled for just under an hour, and a total of four buses at a time are  used to provide 30 minute service frequency when operating bi‐directional service.     Alternative 1 – Revise Route 4 to 2‐Way Service on Madonna Route and Revise Route 5 to Serve  California Boulevard    Under this option Route 4 would be modified as shown in Figure 26 to instead provide bi‐ directional service between downtown and the Los Osos Valley area via Madonna Road. This  modification would relieve portions of the current Routes 4 and 5 that are the biggest sources  of delay along Los Osos Valley Road, including the traffic associated with the shopping centers  off Los Osos Valley Road and the car dealerships. Although the revised route would still travel   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 116 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 100 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV227 UV1 UV227 UV227 UV227 UV1 E l k s L n Madonn a R d Sa n L u i s D r Hig u e r a S t Prado R d Lo s O s o s V a l l e y R d T o r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t F o o t h i l l B l v d L o s O s o s V alle y R d C h o r r o S t L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d C h o r r o S t Hi g u e r a S t Monte r e y S t C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Tank Farm Rd Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors c c c c c c c Existing Route 4/5Route 5 AlternativeRoute 4 Alternative c c c c 0 0.5 10.25 Miles I Figure Routes 4 and 5 Option 1 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 117   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 101   along Los Osos Valley Road, eliminating service down Foothill Boulevard would improve the  directness and the on‐time performance of the Route. One bus would provide hourly service at  all times, or two buses could be used to provide half‐hourly service during weekdays. A  variation using US 101 for service was considered, however, it would impact the ability of the  route to provide bi‐directional services in certain key areas of the city, specifically connections  between such areas Auto Parkway and Madonna Plaza.    Route 5 would continue to operate as a large bi‐directional loop, providing hourly service in  each direction using one bus in each direction. This route would be scheduled to arrive on  campus at the busy part of the hour. The routing on‐campus would be streamlined to reduce  service through time consuming portions of the campus. In addition, service is shifted from the  South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue corridor to Higuera Street/Marsh Street to reduce Route 5  running time and improve on‐time performance. Although it is expensive to operate two buses  on this route, the primary benefit of this route is that it provides a shorter travel time between  the Los Osos Valley Road area and the Cal Poly campus, which is a popular trip pattern.     If Route 4 is operated hourly, this would reduce annual operating costs by $162,400. Ridership  would be reduced by 10,500 per year, largely due to the need to transfer and longer travel  times between the LOVR area and Cal Poly, as well as the loss of service along Grand Avenue.  Subtracting the $1,400 annual loss of fare revenues, overall subsidy requirements would be  reduced by $161,000.     Advantages     Reduces the number of buses in operation by one and reduces operating subsidy  requirements.   Focuses resources on more productive corridors and away from unproductive areas.   Reduces traffic delays associated with turning around on LOVR   Improves running time and on‐time performance on Route 5.   Continues to provide service to all stops that are served today by Routes 4 and 5.    Disadvantages     Reduces direct service frequency between LOVR and Cal Poly via Foothill Boulevard,  which has a shorter travel time than via downtown.   Reduces service on Foothill Boulevard west of Patricia to hourly in each direction.   Reduction of service along Foothill corridor could increase overcrowding on Route 6A.   Eliminates northbound service on Grand Avenue, and reduces southbound service.  While ridership currently using the Performing Arts Center stop would shift to other on‐ campus stops, the stops at Grand/Mill, Grand/Abbott and Grand/McCollum currently  generate 12 percent of all ridership on Routes 4 and 5.    Reduces service on South Street and Santa Barbara Avenue to hourly in each direction   Requires a transfer between the neighborhood south of downtown and Cal Poly.   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 118 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 102 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan      Reduced service between downtown and Cal Poly could increase overcrowding on  Route 6B.    Adding a second bus on Route 4 on weekdays to provide half hourly service would erase the  reduction in operating cost, and instead result in a net increase of $22,600 per year. Ridership  would be substantially benefitted from the more frequent service, yielding an overall increase  of 44,000 per year. Considering the $5,700 in additional fare revenues, net subsidy needs would  increase by $16,900.    Alternative 2 – Combined 2‐Way Route    The second alternative would merge Routes 4 and 5 into a single route that would serve many  of the same neighborhoods but would not leave the city limits along Foothill and Los Osos  Valley Road. Instead, as shown in Figure 27 this route would travel from Cal Poly (Highland  Drive) to Los Osos Valley Road via downtown San Luis Obispo. As shown, the route would  continue to serve the Auto Parkway area, however, if Route 2 is modified to serve the  southeastern portion of Los Osos Valley Road, then Route 4/5 would no longer need to serve  Auto Parkway. This route could provide a frequency of every 30 minutes with 3 buses (2 buses  would result in a 45 minute frequency).     The elimination of Route 4/5 service on the Foothill Corridor west of Cal Poly would trigger the  need for additional Route 6A capacity. Based on a review of existing 4/5 passenger loads, 9  additional hours of service are assumed on Route 6A for weekdays during the academic year.    The revisions to Route 4 and 5 would reduce operating costs by $475,200. Including an  additional operating cost of $65,400 associated with additional Route 6A service, the net  reduction in operating cost would be $409,800. Ridership would be reduced by 26,600 per year,  including the impacts of the loss of service on Grand Avenue and the increased travel time  between LOVR and Cal Poly. Fares would be reduced by $3,500 per year, yielding a net  operating subsidy savings of $406,300 annually.    Advantages     Eliminates service beyond the city limits.   Reduces the number of buses needed to provide 30 minute service frequency from four  to three (though additional 6A bus yields a net of no change in the number of buses)   Avoids the need for transfers in downtown for travel between southwest San Luis  Obispo and Cal Poly    Disadvantages     This alternative would eliminate all direct service between the neighborhoods along  Foothill Boulevard from downtown San Luis Obispo as the only service to these  neighborhoods would be 6A  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 119   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 103        S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV227 UV1 UV227 UV227 UV227 UV1 E l k s L n Madonn a R d Sa n L u i s D r Hig u e r a S t Prado R d Lo s O s o s V a l l e y R d T o r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t F o o t h i l l B l v d L o s O s o s V alle y R d C h o r r o S t L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d C h o r r o S t Hi g u e r a S t Monte r e y S t C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Tank Farm RdService Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors c c c Route 4/5 Alternative Existing Route 4/5 c 0 0.5 10.25 Miles I Figure Routes 4 and 5 Alternative 2 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 120 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 104 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan      During periods of reduced service, 45‐minute frequency would not provide good  transfer options.   Would result in no service along Grand   Would increase travel times between the LOVR area and Cal Poly by roughly 20 minutes    Route 6A/B    Currently one bus provides 30 minute service on Route 6A during weekdays in the academic  year. Route 6b is currently the capacity enhancement route, with one bus providing 30‐minute  service between the Cal Poly campus and downtown.     Alternative 1 – Two Half‐Hourly Routes    As shown in Figure 28, this alternative would leave Route 6A unchanged. Route 6b, currently  the capacity enhancement route, would become the prime connector between downtown and  the Cal Poly campus, serving the Grand Avenue corridor via the Performing Arts Center in both  directions. This would allow the changes to Route 1 and/or Routes 4/5, discussed above. One  bus can provide 30 minute service on Route 6a and one bus can provide 30 minute service on  Route 6b.    This would reduce annual operating costs by $8,400. The ridership would increase by 5,100  passenger‐trips per year. Subtracting the change in fare revenues of $100, annual operating  subsidies would decrease by $8,500.    Advantages      Provides greater flexibility for expanding downtown‐Cal Poly or Foothill/Highland‐Cal  Poly capacity as needed.    Avoids delays on other parts of the system unduly impacting service reliability on this  key corridor.   Provides consistent two‐way service along busy Grand Avenue corridor    Disadvantages     Requires transfers between the Foothill area and downtown at Kennedy Library,  depending on the changes to Routes 4/5 (discussed above).   Eliminates service to the California/Taft stop (northbound only)    Alternative 2 – One Hourly Route Providing 30 Minute Frequency    This option is similar to Alternative 1, except that Routes 6a and 6b would be combined into a  single 60‐minute‐long route operated by two buses, as shown in Figure 29. Service would  continue to operate with 2 buses providing service every 30 minutes during the school year   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 121   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 105       C a l C a l P o l yP o l y S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV1 UV227 UV1 UV227 UV227 Walnu t S t Monte r e y S t Foothill Blvd H i g u e r a S t O s o s S t S a n L u i s D r T o r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t J o h n s o n A v e C h o r r o S t C h o r r o S t Hi g u e r a S t C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors Route 6B Existing Route 6B Alternative Route 6A Existing and Alternative b b b b b b b b 0 0.5 10.25 Miles I Figure Route 6A/6B Alternative 1 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 122 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 106 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          C a l C a l P o l yP o l y S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV1 UV227 UV1 UV227 UV227 Walnu t S t Monte r e y S t Foothill Blvd H i g u e r a S t O s o s S t S a n L u i s D r T o r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t J o h n s o n A v e C h o r r o S t C h o r r o S t Hig u e r a S t C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors Existing Route 6B Existing Route 6A Route 6A/6B Alternative b b b b b b b b b 0 0.5 10.25 Miles I Figure Route 6A/6B Alternative 2 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 123   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 107   weekday daytime periods with 1 bus providing service every 60 minutes during the summer  and during school year evenings and Saturdays.    Operating costs would be reduced by $8,500 per year. A slight increase in ridership over the  previous alternative would be generated by the fact that passengers between the Foothill  Corridor and downtown would not need to transfer at Cal Poly, resulting in an overall ridership  increase of 5,500 per year. Subtracting the small increase in fare revenue, subsidy requirements  would be decreased by $8,600.    Advantages      Avoids the need to transfer for trips between the Foothill Boulevard area and  downtown, and makes the system easier to understand and use.   Avoids delays on other parts of the system unduly impacting service reliability on this  key corridor   Provides consistent two‐way service along busy Grand Avenue corridor    Disadvantages     Eliminates service to the California/Taft stop (northbound only)    Alternative 3 – Two Half‐Hourly Routes Providing Service Every 15 Minutes in Peak Periods    Another alternative considered is identical to Alternative 1, except that two buses would be  operated during high ridership periods on weekdays during the school year, providing service  every 15 minutes. A review of ridership data by run indicates that the additional service would  be warranted over the following periods:    Route 6a – 7:30 AM to 9:30 PM  Route 6b – 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM    The additional service would increase annual operating costs by $145,800. Based on existing  ridership during the expanded service period, elasticity analysis indicates that an increase of  53,200 passenger‐trips per year would be generated. Subtracting $600 in additional fare  revenues, subsidy requirements would increase by $145,200.    Advantages      Greater frequency, generating greater ridership.   Greater frequency of arrivals in downtown provides better transfer opportunities to  other routes and services.       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 124 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 108 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     Disadvantages     Requires 4 (2 additional) buses to provide 15‐minute service frequency at all peak times.     Alternative 4 – Large Bi‐Directional Loop Providing Service Every 20 Minutes in Peak Periods    A final alternative is a single large loop that encompasses Cal Poly, downtown and the  Foothill/Highland corridor, as shown in Figure 30. This loop would have a running time of  approximately 34 minutes, providing 6 minutes of layover in a 40‐minute cycle length. To avoid  excessive out‐of‐direction travel and delays, this loop would need to be operated in both  directions. Two buses in each direction would yield 20‐minute service frequency.    This option would benefit ridership by increasing service frequency, and by providing  convenient one‐bus service throughout the northern portion of San Luis Obispo. Travel time  between the Cal Poly campus and the eastern end of the Foothill Corridor (such as University  Square) would be increased, which would have a negative impact on ridership. In addition, the  low‐ridership stop at California/Taft would no longer be served. Overall, annual ridership would  increase by 42,400 per year.     This would increase annual operating costs by $326,200. Subtracting the change in fare  revenues of $500, annual operating subsidies would increase by $325,700.    Advantages      Better transit connections between the Foothill/Highland corridor and downtown (and  connecting bus services).   Simpler route structure that is easier to understand.    Disadvantages     Requires 4 buses to provide 20‐minute service frequency at all peak times.   Changes in service levels can only be made for the entire route.   20 minute frequency would reduce convenience of transfers to other routes on some  runs.   As more time and miles is provided connecting residential areas to downtown rather  than to the Cal Poly campus, this is a less effective service expansion alternative than  the previous one.       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 125   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 109        C a l C a l P o l yP o l y S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV1 UV227 UV1 UV227 UV227 Walnu t S t Monte r e y S t Foothill Blvd H i g u e r a S t O s o s S t S a n L u i s D r T o r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t J o h n s o n A v e C h o r r o S t C h o r r o S t Hig u e r a S t C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors Route 6A and 6B Alternative Existing Route 6B Exisitng Route 6A b b b b b b b b b b b b 0 0.5 10.25 Miles I Figure Route 6A/6B Alternative 4 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 126 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 110 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     Span of Service Options    Extend Hours of Operation during the School Year    On school‐year weekdays, the daytime service plan currently runs through approximately 6:00  PM on Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6a, and 6b, and until roughly 7:20 PM on Route 5. Lower frequency  evening service is operated until 9:18 PM on Route 2, 9:45 PM on Route 3, 10:44 PM on Route  4, 10: 29 on Route 6A, and 10:56 on Route 6B. A very common request is for later evening  service and more frequent evening service, particularly on the routes with high student  ridership.    A review of hourly ridership by route data indicates the following additional evening services  would be effective:    • Route 1 – Extend daytime service by 2 hours (until 8:09 PM, with 2 additional trips)    • Route 4 – Extend daytime service by 2 hours (until 8:15 PM, with 2 additional trips)    • Route 5 ‐‐ Extend daytime service by 2 hours (until 8:17 PM, with 2 additional trips)    • Route 6a – Extend daytime service by 3 hours (until 8:59 PM, with 3 additional trips) and  extend evening service by 1 hour, until 11:29 PM (1 additional trip)    • Route 6b ‐‐ Extend daytime service by 3 hours (until 9:09 PM, with 3 additional trips).    In addition, the following additional early morning runs would be effective:    • Route 1 – One additional run starting at 6:15 AM    • Route 4 – One additional 4b run starting at 6:10 AM    This would also have the benefit of making the start times more consistent over the system  (with the exception of Route 6a and 6b, focusing on Cal Poly).    An evaluation of the impacts of these additional services is presented in Table 33. As indicated,  costs are included for the Runabout services needed to cover the additional late‐night hours, as  well as the additional dispatch/mechanic costs. In total, these service enhancements would  increase annual operating costs by $138,000. The ridership increase, based upon elasticity  analysis and review of ridership patterns, would equal 31,000 passenger‐trips per year.  Subtracting the change in fare revenues of $300 per year, annual operating subsidies would  increase by $138,200.        ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 127   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 111       Advantages      Expands access to evening employment, classes, social events, etc.   Addresses overcrowding of some evening runs on Routes 4 and 6A   Can help improve personal security    Disadvantages     Increases operating costs   Requires expansion of Runabout hours of service    Provide Evening Service in the Summer    At present, SLO Transit does not provide fixed route service in the evening (beyond  approximately 6:30 PM to 7:00 PM, depending on the route) during the summer. Under this  alternative, evening service would be provided on summer weekday evening, with hours  consistent with those operated during the academic year, on Routes 2, 3, 4 and 6A/6B.     Ridership can be estimated by reviewing existing evening ridership during the academic year, as  well as the relative ridership during the summer versus during the academic year. As shown in  Table 34, estimated total ridership growth is 8,000 additional passenger‐trips, with the  strongest potential on Route 4. This would increase annual operating costs by $39,600. The  ridership increase would generate additional fare revenue of $1,300, yielding an annual  operating subsidy requirement of $38,300.       TABLE 33: SLO Transit Span of Service Alternatives Fare Operating Route Trips Hours Miles Days Hours Miles Cost Revenue Subsidy 1L a t e r Runs 2 2 20.5 210 420 4,305 $18,000 1,700 $0 $18,000 1 Earlier Run 1 1 10.3 210 210 2,153 $9,000 1,300 $0 $9,000 4L a t e r Runs 2 2 27.4 210 420 5,758 $24,100 9,100 $100 $24,000 4 Earlier Run 2 2 27.4 210 420 5,758 $24,100 3,200 $0 $24,100 5L a t e r Runs 2 2 27.6 210 420 5,792 $24,300 2,900 $0 $24,300 6A Later Runs 4 2 16.6 210 420 3,494 $14,600 7,700 $100 $14,500 6B Later Runs 3 1.5 13.1 210 315 2,759 $11,600 5,100 $100 $11,500 Runabout Service 0.5 8.5 210 105 1,785 $12,800 ‐‐ ‐‐$12,800 Total 2,730 31,805 $138,500 31,000 $300 $138,200 Daily Change in  Annual   Ridership Annual Additional Service ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 128 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 112 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan         Advantages      Expands access to evening employment, classes, social events, etc.   Provides for a more consistent year‐round schedule, expanding ability to use SLO Transit  for ongoing evening activities such as employment   Can help improve personal security    Disadvantages     Increases operating costs   Relatively low productivity    Extended Trolley Hours of Service    Increased span of service beyond the current 9 PM end of service on Fridays (June through  Labor Day) and Saturdays (April through October) has been identified as a desire of both the  City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Chamber of Commerce. Increasing the span of service for  the Trolley would also require increasing the span of service for Runabout. The cost of  extending the service would include longer dispatcher hours and one Runabout van in  operation during the additional service hours. Extension of service to Midnight on Fridays and  Saturdays between June 1 and Labor Day would be a reasonable next step.     This alternative would cost approximately $2,400 for additional Trolley service. The larger costs  would be for extension of Runabout service and additional dispatch/mechanics hours, which  would equal approximately $9,000, for a total of $11,400.    Riders was estimated to be a net increase of 1,300 per year, based upon observed SLO Trolley  ridership and the relative ridership by hour of similar downtown shuttle services. These new  riders would increase fare revenues by an estimated $600, yielding a net increase in subsidy of  $10,800 per year.    TABLE 34: SLO Transit Summer Evening Service Alternative Fare Operating Route Trips Hours Miles Days Hours Miles Cost Revenue Subsidy 2 3 1.5 26.79 58 87 1,554 $6,500 900 $200 $6,300 3 4 2 31.64 58 116 1,835 $7,700 1,600 $300 $7,400 4 4.6 4.6 63.066 58 267 3,658 $15,300 4,300 $700 $14,600 6AB 5 5 41.7 58 290 2,419 $10,100 1,200 $100 $10,000 760 9,465 $39,600 8,000 $1,300 $38,300 Additional Service Change   in Annual  Ridership Daily Annual ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 129  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 113   Advantages      Encourages downtown evening business activity   Could reduce drunk driving   Can help improve personal security    Disadvantages     Increases operating costs   Increases need for Runabout service    OTHER ALTERNATIVES    High School Tripper     SLO Transit implemented a new route in August 2015 designed to serve the important needs of  San Luis Obispo High School. This route operates three roundtrips in the morning and three  roundtrips in the afternoon connecting the downtown Transit Center and San Luis Obispo High  School. As this is a new service, no modifications are considered at this time.     Crosstown Route    Public outreach has yielded several comments desiring a cross‐town route within the City of  San Luis Obispo. As a radial‐route system, SLO Transit’s current routes require travel to  downtown and transfer to a second route in order to travel across the southern portion of the  service area. For example, a trip between the residential areas along southern portions of  Routes 1 and 3 and the commercial opportunities along Los Osos Valley Road currently takes  about 50 minutes to complete, depending on the specific time of day.    A crosstown route alternative is shown in Figure 31. This 6.0‐mile route (one way) could be  served with one bus on an hourly headway, with time in the schedule to make connections at  the Promenade (with Routes 4 and 5), Higuera Plaza (with Route 6) and at The Brickyard   (Routes 1 and 3). This route could reduce travel time to approximately 25 minutes for this same  trip. It could also serve some transit trip generators (such as along Tank Farm Road) not  currently served by public transit. However, the potential demand would be relatively low  compared to the other existing routes.     A crosstown route also would provide the opportunity to serve the Margarita Specific Plan area  (between South Higuera Street and Broad Street, north of Tank Farm Road). Providing transit  service to the Margarita Specific Plan has been a consideration in the last three Short Range  Transit Plans. A key aspect of this plan is the completion of Prado Road between Broad Street  and Higuera Street. Once specific timing of this roadway as well as timing for development of a  substantial portion of the Specific Plan land uses has been defined, the potential for service via  a Crosstown Route can be better defined.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 130 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 114 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          Promenade The Brickyard S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o £¤101 UV227 UV1 UV227 UV227 UV227 UV1 E l k s L n Mont e r e y S t Los Osos Valley Rd Tank Farm Rd Hig u e r a S t S a n L u i s D r F o oth ill Blvd Prado R d Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t Jo h n s o n A v e C h o r r o S t Madon n a R d C h o r r o S t H i g u e r a S t C a l i f o r n i a Bl v d TankFarmRd L o s O s o s V a ll e y R d Or c u t t R d Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributorsSources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, DeLorme, HERE, Geonames.org, and other contributors 0 0.45 0.90.225 Miles I Figure Crosstown Route Alternative ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 131  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 115   Assuming a span of service similar to that of Routes 1 and 3 during the non‐academic year  (roughly 12 hours of service on weekdays and 9 hours on weekends), this route would require  annual operating costs of approximately $198,100. Ridership was estimated by reviewing  existing boarding/alighting patterns and transfer patterns on the routes that would be  connected with a Crosstown Route, assessing the reduction in travel time that could be  provided by this new route as well as the need to transfer, and considering the potential for  new service areas along the route. In particular, the fact that time savings for many trips would  be relatively modest and/or would still require a transfer limits the ridership benefit of this  option. Overall, an annual ridership of 13,900 was estimated. Subtracting the fare revenues of  $3,200, annual operating subsidies would be increased by $194,900 per year.    Advantages      Provides reduced travel times for east‐west trips across the southern portion of the city   Expands transit service area to employment areas along Tank Farm Road   Provides future opportunity to serve new development in the area    Disadvantages     Substantially increases operating costs   Many individual passenger trips would still require transfers, reducing attractiveness to  potential riders    Taxicab Services    There are two taxicab companies, along with Uber and Lyft, which provide privately owned  public transit services within the City of San Luis Obispo and to San Luis Obispo Airport. In  addition to the airport, the Amtrak train station in San Luis Obispo is a taxi trip generator. These  taxicab companies are more likely to have success serving the airport than transit services as  there is space for passenger luggage in the vehicles, they provide door‐to‐door and their service  is on demand. This is a more appropriate service strategy for the limited number of flights that  serve the airport. If the airport does receive more flights and the airport employment base  increases, transit services may become more feasible but for the time being taxicab service are  sufficient. The niche air market does not require that the RTA or SLO Transit provide subsidies  for taxicab rides.     Service Scheduling to Provide 15‐Minute Driver Breaks    As opposed to providing adequate running time to accommodate driver breaks in the regular  route schedule, another means of meeting driver break requirements would be to build 15‐ minute breaks in all fixed route services every 3 hours over the course of the day. This would  eliminate the ability to provide timed transfers with RTA routes, except on a haphazard basis. It  would also complicate the schedule, making it a little more difficult for SLO Transit passengers  to understand and use the schedules. Experience in other transit systems show that providing  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 132 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 116 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     consistent “clock headways” that do not vary over the course of the day results in roughly a 5  percent increase in ridership. Due to this ridership impact, this strategy is not recommended.   Benefits, however, are a consistent compliance with driver break requirements, a slight  reduction of driver staffing and associated costs, (because of the reduction in shift change  coverage positions) as well as the cost saving of not paying for four 15‐minute breaks  throughout the day.  This equates to one entire revenue hour and associated cost savings that  could be reinvested to extend the hours of service.      COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS    A review of Table 32 reflects the wide variation in the impacts of the various alternatives on  SLO annual ridership. As also shown in Figure 32, these range from an increase of 53,200 for the  15‐minute service on Routes 6A and 6B, to a decrease of 26,600 resulting from revising Routes  4 and 5 into a single route connecting Cal Poly, downtown and the LOVR area. Other  alternatives with relatively strong ridership potential are the 44,000 associated with the Route  4/5 Alternative 1 with 30‐minute service on the Madonna Road corridor, and the 42,400  generated by combining Routes 6A and 6B into a single large bi‐directional loop with 20‐minute  service.    The relative impacts on annual subsidy requirements are shown in Figure 33. At one extreme,  combining Routes 6A and 6B into a single large 2‐way loop would increase annual subsidy  requirements by $325,700, while at the other extreme combining Route 4 and 5 into a single  Cal Poly – downtown – LOVR route would reduce subsidy by $406,300.    Alternatives Performance Analysis    An analysis of the performance of the SLO alternatives is presented in Table 35. This considers  the following key transit service performance measures:     The marginal passenger‐trips per vehicle‐hour is a key measure of the productivity of a  transit service. As shown, and as also indicated in Figure 34, some alternatives yield a  negative number, reflecting the ridership decreases while vehicle‐hour increase (an  undesired result) while others yield a negative value due to a positive ridership change and  a reduction in vehicle‐hours (a desired result). Also, some positive values are a result of a  reduction in both ridership and vehicle‐hours. By this measure, the “best” alternatives are  the realignment of Route 4 to provide 30‐minute service along the Madonna Road corridor,  which generates, 158.3 additional passenger‐trips for every hour of reduction in service.  The revision of Route 6 into a large loop with 20‐minute service also has good performance  by this measure, increasing annual ridership by 146.2 for every vehicle‐hour reduced. Of  those alternatives increasing vehicle‐hours of service, the best performer is reversing  Routes 1 and 3, generating 22.5 passenger‐trips for every additional vehicle‐hour. By this  measure, the worst alternative is the second Routes 1/3 alternative (Route 1 on Broad  Street, Route 3 on Johnson Avenue), that reduces ridership by 5.1 passengers for every hour  of service added.   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 133   SLO Transit Short Range Traansit Plan    LSC Transportation Consultaants, Inc. / AECO Pa OM, Inc.  age 117   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 134 LSC Transpo Page 118  ortation Consultaants, Inc. / AECOOM, Inc. SLO Transit Sh   hort Range Transsit Plan      ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 135   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 119       TA B L E  35 :  SL O  Tr a n s i t  Se r v i c e  Al t e r n a t i v e s  Pe r f o r m a n c e  An a l y s i s Al t e r n a t i v e Ps g r ‐Tr i p s   pe r  Se r v i c e ‐ Ho u r Ps g r ‐Tr i p s   pe r  Se r v i c e ‐ Mi l e Co s t  pe r   Ps g r ‐Tr i p Su b s i d y  pe r   Ps g r ‐Tr i p Fa r e b o x   Ra t i o g 1 Ro u t e  1  & 3  2  1 ‐Wa y  Lo o p s ,  Rt  3  Ex t e n s i o n  S.  on  Br o a d 1. 7 8 . 7 5 $ 0 . 4 8 $ 0 . 2 4 5 0 % 2 Ro u t e  1  on  Br o a d  St ,  Ro u t e  3  on  Jo h n s o n  Av e ‐5. 1 ‐0. 5 5 ‐$7 . 6 7 ‐$7 . 9 0 ‐3% 3 Ro u t e  1  on  Jo h n s o n  Av e ,  Ro u t e  1  on  Br o a d  St 2. 4 ‐0. 8 7 ‐$4 . 7 9 ‐$5 . 0 3 ‐5% 4 Re v e r s e  Ex i s t i n g  Ro u t e s  1  & 3 22 . 5 4 . 1 8 $ 1 . 0 0 $ 0 . 7 8 2 3 % 1 Mi n o r  Re v i s i o n  to  Rt .  2  to  Se r v e  Ne w  De v e l o p m e n t ‐31 . 7 3 . 4 2 $ 1 . 2 2 $ 0 . 9 9 1 9 % 2 Rt  2  Lo o p  on  Hi g u e r a ,  LO V R ,  Ma d o n n a  Ro a d ‐21 . 7 5 4 . 7 4 $ 0 . 0 8 ‐$0 . 1 5 3 0 0 % R o u t e s   2 ‐ 4 1 Co m b i n e  Rt s  2  & 4,  2 ‐Wa y  Lo o p  on  Hi g u e r a ,  LO V R ,   Ma d o n n a 2. 5 0 . 3 0 $ 1 3 . 8 0 $ 1 3 . 5 8 2 % 1A Rt  4  Ho u r l y  2  Wa y  Sv c  on  Ma d o n n a  Rd ,  Rt  5  Sv c  on   Ca l i f o r n i a  Bl v d 3. 2 0 . 2 7 $ 1 5 . 4 7 $ 1 5 . 3 3 1 % 1B Rt  4  30 ‐ Mi n  2  Wa y  Sv c  on  Ma d o n n a  Rd ,  Rt  5  Sv c  on   Ca l i f o r n i a  Bl v d ‐15 8 . 3 8 . 1 5 $ 0 . 5 1 $ 0 . 3 8 2 5 % 2 Rt  4& 5  Co m b i n e d  in t o  Ca l  Po l y  ‐   LO V R  Ro u t e 10 . 6 0 . 2 7 $ 1 5 . 4 1 $ 1 5 . 2 7 1 % 1 RT s  6A & 6 B  ‐   2  30 ‐ mi n  Ro u t e s ‐‐ ‐ 2. 5 4 ‐$1 . 6 5 ‐$1 . 6 7 ‐1% 2 RT s  6A & 6 B  ‐   1  Ho u r l y  Ro u t e ,  Ev e r y  30  Mi n ‐‐ ‐ 2. 7 1 ‐$1 . 5 5 ‐$1 . 5 6 ‐1% 3 RT s  6A & 6 B  ‐   2  Ro u t e s ,  Pe a k  15 ‐ Mi n  Se r v i c e 12 . 1 1 . 5 3 $ 2 . 7 4 $ 2 . 7 3 0 % 4 Rt  6  ‐   La r g e  2 ‐Wa y  Ro u t e  Ev e r y  20  Mi n ‐14 6 . 2 0 . 5 4 $ 7 . 6 9 $ 7 . 6 8 0 % Ex t e n d e d  Ho u r s  of  Se r v i c e  in  Sc h o o l  Ye a r 11 . 4 0 . 9 7 $ 4 . 4 7 $ 4 . 4 6 0 % Su m m e r  Ev e n i n g  Se r v i c e 10 . 5 0 . 8 5 $ 4 . 9 5 $ 4 . 7 9 3 % Tr o l l e y  Se r v i c e  Un t i l  Mi d n i g h t 15 . 5 2 . 3 2 $ 8 . 7 7 $ 8 . 3 1 5 % Cr o s s t o w n  Ro u t e 3. 5 0 . 2 9 $ 1 4 . 2 5 $ 1 4 . 0 2 2 % R o u t e   6 R o u t e s   4 ‐ 5 R o u t e s   1 ‐ 3 R o u t e   2 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 136 LSC Transpo Page 120  ortation Consultaants, Inc. / AECOOM, Inc. SLO Transit Sh   hort Range Transsit Plan      ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 137  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 121      The marginal passenger‐trips per vehicle‐mile of service, among those alternatives that  increase ridership, is “best” for those that yield a negative value, such as the second Route  1/3 alternative (Route 1 on Johnson Avenue, Route 3 on Broad Street), followed by the first  two revisions to Route 6. Of those that increase both ridership and vehicle‐hours, the best is  the first Route 1/3 alternative (two one‐way loops, with extension south on Broad Street),  that generates 8.75 passenger‐trips for every net new vehicle‐mile.      The cost per passenger‐trip is best for those that generate a negative number through a  reduction in cost and an increase in ridership, which consists of the third alternative for  Routes 1/3 (Route 1 on Johnson Avenue and Route 3 on Broad Street), as well as the first  two Route 6 alternatives. Of those alternatives increasing both costs and ridership, the best  alternatives have a relatively low value, such as the first Routes 1/3 alternative which  requires only $0.48 in additional costs per new passenger‐trip. At the opposite extreme, the  second Routes 1/3 alternative would increase costs by $7.67 for every passenger‐trip lost.     Subsidy per passenger‐trip directly relates the key public input (funding) to the key desired  output (ridership). As with the previous performance measure, the best alternatives yield a  negative value by relating a reduction in subsidy to an increase in ridership. These consist of  Routes 1/3 Alternative 3, and the first two alternatives for Route 6. Of those alternatives  that increase both ridership and subsidy needs, the best alternatives (those requiring the  least in subsidy for every passenger‐trip gained) are the first Routes 1/3 alternative ($0.24),  followed by the first Route 4/5 alternative with 30‐minute service on the realigned Route 4  ($0.38). Of those that reduce both ridership and cost, the “better” are those that save the  greatest subsidy per passenger‐trip eliminated, such as the second Routes 4/5 alternative  ($15.27). Finally, the second Route 1/3 alternative again shows poor performance by  increasing subsidy for every passenger‐trip lost by $7.90. These findings are displayed in  Figure 35.     The farebox ratio is the ratio of marginal passenger‐fares to marginal operating costs.  Again, a negative value can reflect a positive condition, in that fares increase while  operating costs decrease (Routes 1/3 Alternative 3 and Route 6 Alternatives 1 and 2). Of  those alternatives increasing fares and costs, a high value reflects a better alternative, such  as the 50% value found for the first Routes 1/3 alternative. The highest value shown in  Table 35, however, reflects that the second Route 2 alternative generates three times more  loss in fare revenue than it generates reduction in operating cost.    In sum, this review provides useful information for making decisions regarding the individual  routes, and ultimately the SLO Transit network as a whole. The appropriate alternatives to work  into the overall plan will depend on the relative balance between the desire for ridership  growth and the financial realities of available operating funding. It is also important to consider  that there are many other factors (in particular, the ability to provide a dependable and safe  transit service) beyond these financial and performance measures. Nonetheless, the following  are key overall findings that result from this evaluation:  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 138 LSC Transpo Page 122  ortation Consultaants, Inc. / AECOOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Shhort Range Transsit Plan      ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 139  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 123      For Routes 1/3, the first, third and fourth alternatives should all be considered, while the  second alternative is clearly inferior.     None of the alternatives involving Route 2 would increase ridership, though the  combination with Route 4 could save substantial operating subsidy.     The revisions of Route 4 and 5 that would yield half‐hourly Route 4 service between  downtown and the LOVR area along with a revised Route 5 has the potential for increasing  ridership substantially, at a relatively modest increase in operating cost.     The first two alternatives for Route 6 could yield a modest increase in ridership along with a  modest reduction in costs. The latter two alternatives have a higher potential to increase  ridership, though at higher subsidy needs. Of these, the provision of peak 15‐minute service  on routes oriented to the Cal Poly campus has a higher ridership potential and lower net  subsidy requirement, though the large two‐way loop provides better integration into  downtown and the remainder of the transit system.     The extension of the span of service during the academic year, the provision of summer  evening service and the extension of trolley service until Midnight on summer Friday and  Saturday nights all have similar modest performance results. Of the span of service options,  the extension of evening service on Routes 4 and 6A/6B yield substantially better  productivity (16 to 21 passengers per hour) than the other options considered.     The Crosstown Route would have very poor performance and should not be considered  further. Instead, convenient cross‐town service could be more effectively provided by  schedule revisions to allow better direct transfers in downtown San Luis Obispo.    ADA IMPACTS    Overall, this service plan does not increase service coverage in the county that would  necessitate a change in the Runabout service area. However, extension of fixed route services  (on either SLO Transit or RTA) beyond the current span of Runabout service hours would trigger  the need for expanded Runabout services (including dispatch services). At present, Runabout  operations cease at 9:00 PM on weekdays, 7:00 PM on Saturdays, and 6:00 PM on Sundays. In  addition, an ADA analysis has been conducted in order to manage growth in the current  Runabout service, and is discussed in the following chapter.     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 140 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 124 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     This page left intentionally blank.     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 141   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 125   Chapter 7  Management and Financial Alternatives    MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES    RTA / SLO Transit Coordination Opportunities    A focus of this SRTP is to consider opportunities to better coordinate the RTA program with the  SLO Transit program. There is a long history of coordination between the transit services. The  intention and mechanism for coordination was formalized in 2003 via an agreement between  SLOCOG, the City of SLO and the RTA regarding public transit planning and programming. This  document specifies that SLOCOG and the two operators “agree to work cooperatively with each  other and with other public and private transit providers and governmental agencies to ensure  the provision of coordinated, cost‐effective, area‐wide transit services. Such coordination  includes, to the extent feasible: fares; operating service agreements; transfer rates and pass  policies; transit information and marketing; schedule and service coordination; capital needs;  shared support facilities; data needs to meet period reporting requirement; and other activities  as agreed upon by the parties.”     This discussion first focuses on opportunities for the coordination of transit services, followed  by a review of fares and fare policies, marketing, technology options, performance measures  and funding strategies.    Service Coordination     Services can be coordinated in terms of geography (routes) as well as times (schedules and span  of service) and route designations, as discussed below.    Geographic Areas of Existing Overlap    The two transit systems have only limited overlap:     RTA Route 9 serves the US 101 corridor north of San Luis Obispo. While all runs serve the  Government Center, five southbound and eight northbound (out of 17 runs per day in each  direction) serve Cal Poly (Kennedy Library), as well as 4 to 5 other stops along Monterey  Street, Grand Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue. These are the runs arriving southbound up to  8:11 AM, and most of the runs departing northbound starting at 2:21 PM. A review of Route  9 ridership by run for the day of onboard surveys indicates that good ridership was  generated by the southbound AM runs serving Cal Poly. However, only the 2:21 PM, 4:21  PM and 5:15 PM northbound departures served more than one rider on the survey day on  these additional local stops. While it is appropriate to continue to provide Route 9 service to  Cal Poly for the final 8:33 PM departure, more extensive ridership data should be reviewed  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 142 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 126 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     to identify if continuing to serve the limited stops on the 3:21 PM, 4:15 PM, 5:21 PM and  6:21 PM northbound runs should be continued.     RTA Routes 12 and 14 serve two stops within San Luis Obispo (beyond the downtown  transfer center) along Santa Rosa Street. A review of ridership patterns indicates that the  large majority of these passengers are boarding northbound runs heading out of town or  deboarding southbound runs arriving from Morro Bay and Cuesta College. Given that these  are regional trips, it is appropriate that RTA serve these stops.     RTA Route 10 extends south from San Luis Obispo to the Five Cities and Santa Maria. With  the exception of the three northbound and two southbound daily express runs, this route  serves four existing stops also served by SLO Transit Route 2 (at Higuera/Nipomo,  Higuera/South, Higuera/Margarita and Higuera/Suburban). A review of ridership activity at  these shared stops indicates the following:    o On the northbound Route 10 runs, 113 ridership deboard at these stops over the course  of a day, and 35 passengers board. In the southbound direction, 15 passengers deboard  and 37 passengers board. Overall, 200 RTA passengers per day use these stops, with 150  (75%) using them in the “regional” direction (deboarding northbound, boarding  southbound), and 50 (25%) in the “local” direction.    o This pattern indicates that many riders arrive in San Luis Obispo from the south and  deboard along South Higuera, use SLO Transit or RTA locally during the day, and then  board at Government Center for the return trip southbound. This is corroborated by the  fact that the majority of the northbound deboardings along South Higuera occur prior to  9:30 AM.    o Ridership at these stops is a substantial proportion of overall Route 10 ridership,  generating 30 percent of ridership in the northbound direction and 12 percent in the  southbound direction, or 21 percent overall.     Overall, this data indicates that it is important for RTA to continue to serve the South  Higuera corridor, and that the number of passengers using this route segment for local  trips within San Luis Obispo is relatively low4. However, there are some runs that (based  upon the survey day data) serve low (less than 3) passenger‐trips in the “regional”  direction:    Northbound – 1:14 PM    Southbound – 8:33 AM, 11:33 AM, 12:33 PM, 1:33 PM, 2:33 PM, 6:33 PM, and 8:33 PM                                                                 4 This is probably due in part to the fact that fares for a local trip within San Luis Obispo are slightly higher than  fares for SLO Transit.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 143   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 127   While it is appropriate to retain South Higuera service on the final 8:33 PM “sweep” run,  the other runs are potential candidates for conversion to express service, at least with  respect to the South Higuera stops. Ridership data over additional days should be  reviewed to determine if the broader data supports this modification.    Scheduling and Transfer Opportunities    Hours of Operation    Optimally, the span of service would allow transfers from all runs on each route to all runs on  other routes. As shown in Table 36, the service times line up reasonably well, with the following  exceptions:     The first morning RTA runs operate before SLO Transit Routes 1, 4, 6a and 6b begin service.      On weekdays during the academic year, RTA Routes 9 and 10 stop service prior to the last  few runs on SLO Transit Routes 2, 3, 4, 6a and 6b. The last few RTA Route 9 and 10 runs  therefore do not have transfer opportunities to SLO Transit routes in summer.      The start of Saturday service is consistent over the two services, though the final RTA runs  occur after the end of SLO Transit service.    Reviewing the existing transfer activity helps to put this consideration in context. Over a  weekday during the academic year, 121 passengers transfer between the SLO Transit and RTA  systems. This is equivalent to roughly 4.5 percent of RTA boardings, and 2.6 percent of SLO  Transit boardings. The greatest transfers occur between RTA Route 10 and SLO Route 3 (14  passengers), between RTA Route 12 and SLO Route 2 (14 passengers) and between RTA Route  12 and SLO Route 3 (15 passengers). The relatively low interaction between the two systems  points towards their different roles, as well as that RTA serves some key trip generators in San  Luis Obispo directly, reducing the need for transfers. The current lack of coordination also  probably contributes to this low level of transfer activity. Overall, however, the need to  coordinate schedules is modest, indicating that this is one consideration ‐‐ but not a vital one ‐‐  in evaluating the appropriate span of service on the individual routes.    Schedule Coordination    There are many factors that bear consideration in setting the specific schedule of routes. Key  factors include coordination with school bell times (particularly Cal Poly), work schedules, and  the capacity of the transit center.5 Optimally, one factor would be to provide a schedule that  provides the ability to directly transfer (walk off of one bus and directly onto the other) at the  Government Center transfer point.                                                                5 At present, SLO Transit schedules have been offset somewhat to avoid exceeding the current five‐bus capacity of  the Government Center transfer point.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 144 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 128 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan           Table 37 presents the current schedule of buses on each RTA and SLO Transit route at the  downtown center, for a representative two‐hour period of a weekday during the academic  year. This graphically shows that RTA routes along with SLO Transit Route 1 are on a consistent  hourly schedule, SLO Transit Routes 4, 5 and 6b are 30 minute headway, while SLO Transit  Routes 2 and 3 are on 40‐minute headways. As a result, Routes 2 and 3 shift in comparison with  the other routes.    Route Designations    Considering the San Luis Obispo region as a whole, the current route numbering is potentially  confusing. Local routes in San Luis Obispo are numbered as Routes 1 through 6 (including a 6A  and 6B route), while Routes 9 through 15 are regional routes, and Routes 21 through 25 are  South County Transit routes, and the two local routes serving Paso Robles are Routes A and B.  This is potentially confusing to first‐time passengers, and does not present the appearance of  coordinated, consistent region‐wide transit network.  TABLE 36: Comparison of  RTA and SLO Transit Span of Service Time of First Departure to Time of Last Arrival Service/Route From To From To From To 96 : 2 2 AM 8:33 PM 8:23 AM 7:33 PM 7:56 AM 5:33 PM 10 6:40 AM 8:33 PM 8:28 AM 7:33 AM 9:28 AM 5:33 PM 12 6:33 AM 10:03 PM 8:25 AM 7:33 PM 9:25 AM 5:33 PM 14 (1) 7:42 AM 3:45 PM ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 17 : 1 5 AM 6:09 PM ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2 (2) 6:20 AM 9:18 PM 8:20 AM 5:40 PM 8:20 AM 5:00 PM 3 (2) 6:17 AM 9:45 PM 8:17 AM 5:37 PM 8:17 AM 5:37 PM 4 (2) 7:05 AM 10:20 PM 8:10 AM 6:05 PM 8:10 AM 6:05 PM 56 : 4 7 AM 7:17 PM 8:20 AM 6:17 PM 8:20 AM 6:17 PM 6a (1) 7:29 AM 10:29 PM 9:10 AM 5:29 PM ‐‐ ‐‐ 6a (3) 9:10 AM 5:29 PM ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6b (1) 7:02 AM 10:56 PM 8:45 AM 5:56 PM ‐‐ ‐‐ 6b (3) 8:45 AM 5:56 PM ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1. During academic year only. 2. Weekday evening service after 6:17 PM only during  the academic year. 3. During non‐academic year only. Note: Times  shown are for service to Government Center transfer point, except that times   at Kennedy Library are shown for Route 6a. Weekday Saturday Sunday RTA SLO ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 145   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 129         One option would be to renumber the regional routes by multiples of 10, and the local routes  as the following integers, such as the following:  Weekdays During Academic  Year 12345 6 b 9 1 0 1 2 1 4 10:45 AM SLO Transit Routes RTA Routes 10:00 AM 10:05 AM 10:10 AM 10:15 AM 10:20 AM 10:25 AM 10:30 AM 10:35 AM 10:40 AM 11:50 AM 11:55 AM 5‐Minute   Period Start TABLE 37: Example  of  Existing Schedule  Coordination  at  Government  Center  Transfer  Station 11:20 AM 11:25 AM 11:30 AM 11:35 AM 11:40 AM 11:45 AM 10:50 AM 10:55 AM 11:00 AM 11:05 AM 11:10 AM 11:15 AM ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 146 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 130 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan        Maintain existing RTA Route 10, and renumber the SCT routes as Routes 11, 12, 14, and 15.     Renumber existing RTA Route 9 as Route 20, and renumber the Paso Express routes (at the  discretion of the City of Paso Robles) as Routes 21 and 22.     Renumber Route 12 as Route 30, while Route 14 becomes Route 31 and Route 15 becomes  Route 32. The Morro Bay Transit fixed route could also be renumbered as Route 33, at the  discretion of the City of Morro Ba.    Obviously, there are many possible variations on this numbering scheme. Implementing this  strategy would require substantial staff time and costs (for printing new schedules and ride  guides, modifying bus stop signs, and generating public awareness of the changes. It would also  generate inevitable short‐term confusion among passengers. If it can be fully coordinated,  however, this strategy would yield long‐term benefits through providing a consistent and  readily‐understandable regional route structure.    Under the current schedules, consistent direct transfers are available for the following routes:     Between RTA Routes 9, 10, and 12   Between SLO Transit Route 1 (northbound) and Route 5   Between SLO Transit Route 1 (southbound) and Route 6b   Between SLO Transit Routes 2 and 3   Between SLO Transit Routes 4 and 6b    For the majority of possible transfers, however, passengers must wait between buses ‐‐ sometimes for substantial periods. An RTA passenger arriving on Routes 9, 10 or 12 and  destined somewhere in southeast San Luis Obispo along Route 3, for example, is faced with  roughly a half‐hour wait at Government Center. Another example is the long wait for SLO  residents along Foothill Boulevard transferring from SLO Transit Routes 1 or 4 to RTA Routes 9  or 10, who are faced with roughly a 20 minute wait. Even within the SLO Transit network, many  transfers require waits of 15 minutes or more between buses. Overall, the current schedules  reduce the local and regional convenience of the transit network.    In considering strategies to better align schedules, there are more potential constraints on RTA  schedules than on SLO Transit schedules. Changes in RTA Route 9, 10 and 12 schedules (such as  shifting to service at Government Center near the top of the hour rather than the bottom of the  hour) would affect transfer timing with Paso Express, SCT, RTA Route 15 and Morro Bay Transit,  and would also impact coordinating with key “bell times” at Cuesta College and Allan Hancock  College. In comparison, scheduling SLO Transit’s routes must take careful consideration of Cal  Poly schedules (with classes starting at the top of the hour) and to a much lesser extent the bell  times of local schools, but in general have more flexibility. Shifting schedules on Routes 1, 4 and  5 would be relatively straightforward, while providing consistent direct transfers on Routes 2  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 147   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 131   and 3 would require shifting away from the current 40‐minute headway to consistent clock  headways. Specific strategies for revising SLO Transit routes to concentrate Government Center  schedule times at the bottom of the hour will be developed once changes to these routes have  been identified.     Fare Coordination     Fare Categories    The two systems have already taken a substantive fare coordination step (resulting from the  2008 Regional Fare Improvement Study) by offering a regional Day Pass, good for use on both  systems (as well as the SCT and Paso Express services). There are, however, several potential  strategies for better aligning fare categories and policies:     Both systems provide a Regional Day Pass as well as a 31‐Day Pass. RTA provides a 7‐Day  Pass, while SLO Transit provides a Day Pass, 3‐Day, 5‐Day and 7‐Day Pass. One option would  be to focus both programs on a 3‐Day Pass, while another would be to focus both programs  on a 7‐Day Pass. Of note, the most popular of the SLO Transit options is the 3‐Day Pass  (approximately 4,000 boardings per year) compared to the 5‐day and 7‐Day Passes  (approximately 1,200 apiece). In addition, a consistent multi‐day pass program could be  converted to a regional pass program, good on both SLO Transit and on RTA. This could be a  convenient option for visitors exploring the region by transit over a weekend, as an  example.      Both systems provide a means of paying in bulk for multiple rides, though in different  forms. SLO Transit provides a multi‐ride punch pass, good for $20 in boardings for the  general public and for $9 for discount riders. RTA provides a stored value card for $15, again  with no discount provided. One potential strategy would be to expand the stored value card  to also encompass the SLO Transit program, and possibly other connecting services (Santa  Maria Area Transit and Monterey‐Salinas Transit).     While both systems provide free boardings for small children, SLO Transit’s definition is by  age (less than 5 years of age) while RTA’s definition (as well as that used by other services in  the region) is by height (less than 44 inches). The latter is easier for drivers to monitor (a  label is marked along the side of the door), and tends to reduce conflicts between drivers  and passengers. Changing SLO Transit’s policy to a 44‐inch height limit or changing RTA’s  policy to a less than 5 years of age limit would reduce one source of potential confusion  among passengers using both systems.     Both systems provide discounts for persons with disabilities. On SLO Transit, passengers  wishing to board at a discount fare must prove their status by displaying either a Medicare  card or a photo ID. On RTA, passengers must display either a Medicare card or a letter from  the Veterans Administration. A single picture ID program valid over both services would be  a convenience to riders and would better align the two systems.   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 148 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 132 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan       Transfer Policies    SLO Transit allows free transfers for riders boarding the second bus within an hour and  traveling in the same direction. No free transfers are provided on RTA. Given the long travel  distances and zone fares on the RTA system, a free transfer policy would not be appropriate on  RTA. On the other hand, free transfers are important for SLO Transit due to the route structure,  which necessitates numerous transfers. No changes in transfer policies are recommended.    Pass Availability    Optimally, passes for both systems would be available at all pass sale locations in San Luis  Obispo. All SLO Transit pass options are available at the City Hall (990 Palm Street), while 31‐ Day Passes are also available at the Chamber of Commerce (895 Monterey Street) and the 31‐ day Student passes are available at two other locations. RTA offers RTA, SCT and Regional  passes through its website. In addition, RTA passes are available at the County Public Works  office (976 Osos Street), the RTA offices (179 Cross Street) and the Cal Poly Administrative  Building. While there would be little need for SLO Transit pass sales on the Cal Poly campus  (given the current fare agreement), it would be beneficial for RTA passes to be available at City  Hall and the Chamber of Commerce, and for SLO Transit passes to be available at the RTA  offices and through the RTA website.     Marketing Coordination     There are no joint marketing pieces that encompasses all transit services throughout the  region. The 511 site operated by the SLO Regional Ridership program (Rideshare.org) provides a  good region‐wide trip planning tool called “Know‐How‐To‐Go” that includes both RTA and SLO  Transit (as well as other transit services in the region). While web‐based services are an  excellent way to provide detailed information tailored to the needs of the individual rider once  an individual chooses to look into using transit service, there is still a role for paper marketing  pieces that can spark the initial awareness of services.    A region‐wide comprehensive marketing piece, focusing on a poster‐sized map, is a common  strategy in in similar regions with multiple individual transit services. While keeping a regional  map up to date can require ongoing staff time, it can increase general awareness of the  extensive array of interconnecting transit services throughout the San Luis Obispo region (and  beyond), and can be particularly useful in marketing to arriving college students, such as  through posting at key activity centers and distribution at freshman orientation events. This  would not be intended for widespread distribution, but posting the map at key activities and  making it available on‐line can be a worthwhile marketing effort.    Another potential joint marketing strategy would be to develop a single coordinated transit  customer information line for RTA and SLO Transit (and potentially other regional services). At  present, both the RTA and the SLO Transit information phone numbers are typically answered  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 149   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 133   by a dispatcher. As dispatchers must give priority to transit operations, customer calls are not  infrequently delayed. In addition, dispatchers can have varying levels of understanding of other  transit services, and often do not have the time available to help guide a passenger through a  complicated regional trip involving two or more individual services. The SLO Regional Rideshare  provides a very good regional web‐based trip planning tool, but is not readily accessible to all  residents, such as some elderly or persons with disabilities. The Rideshare phone line,  moreover, is not consistently staffed. Expanding this program to fund a single transit  information phone resource in both English and Spanish, and promoting this single phone  number through multiple transit websites and published marketing pieces, could both benefit  overall regional ridership while freeing existing dispatcher time.    Intelligent Transportation Systems Coordination    SLO Transit provides real‐time bus location information online, using the OTVia2 platform. RTA  is in the process of implementing a similar system in the near future, using the Connexionz  platform. Optimally, a rider (or potential rider) could access a single site or use a single app to  see a real‐time bus location map for all regional systems. In addition, focusing on a common  system could increase the ability to share information, ease the process of procuring, installing  and maintaining equipment, and reduce overall system costs.    Performance Standards    In considering coordination of standards, it is appropriate that there be differences, reflecting  the different route length and overall conditions. Both RTA and SLO Transit have well‐ developed performance standards reflecting substantial discussion over the years, as discussed  in Chapter 4. One specific recommendation to enhance coordination and consistency between  the two systems is regarding bus replacement policies. RTA’s adopted standard for fleet  improvements is to “Replace 100 percent of all revenue vehicles no more than 40 percent  beyond the FTA‐defined use life standard in terms of years or miles.” As federal/state funding  for fleet replacement on one system affects funding availability for the other system, it would  be beneficial to have a consistent policy adopted by both. The two organizations (along with  SLOCOG) should also discuss whether tightening up this policy (such as by dropping the 40  percent to 20 percent) is feasible.    Joint Purchasing     Vehicles    The operating requirements of the RTA and SLO Transit systems differ substantially, reducing  the potential for joint purchasing strategies of specific vehicle makes/models. However,  successfully administering the intricate process of vehicle purchases using Federal and state  funding is a significant burden on staff, and combining vehicle purchases into a single process  can ease overall requirements for staff time. Both SLO Transit and RTA are part of the existing  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 150 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 134 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     joint purchasing consortium for diesel low‐floor coaches, which expires in 2018. Beyond that  date, the two systems could seek to jointly partner in another consortium.    Bus Stop Amenities    RTA should be purchasing and installing additional shelters over the SRTP plan period. A bulk  purchase of shelters could potentially yield a lower per‐unit cost, as well as providing a more  consistent look to major bus stops around the region. The two services could also agree to  review ridership boarding data at the shared stops, to define future need for additional  shelters. The boarding figures could then be used to allocate the share of improvement costs.    Joint Training and Maintenance    Both RTA and SLO Transit have robust training programs for drivers, dispatchers and staff.  There may be opportunities to combine training sessions for specialized training functions, such  as the following:     Maintenance on wheelchair lifts   Sensitivity training for working with persons with disabilities   Use and maintenance of the electronic fareboxes.   FTA reporting procedures    The relocation of RTA’s operations/maintenance center nearby to the existing SLO facility will  increase the potential for joint training, as will the construction of the planning improved  training room at the SLO facility.    Coordination of Funding    A key coordination opportunity between the two transit programs is to coordinate use of  Federal and State transit funding sources. This is particularly important regarding major capital  expenditures, such as bus replacement, or transit facility improvements. Some existing transit  funding sources, such as the Local Transportation Fund program, are governed by a formula  and therefore do not require ongoing coordination.     In particular, both RTA and the City of San Luis Obispo are grantees of Federal Transit  Administration 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program, administered through Caltrans. This  requires the two transit entities (and others) to coordinate both operating and capital funding  needs within the overall SLOCOG programming process. This is governed by an existing  cooperative planning agreement, which on the whole appears to function well in  accommodating the needs of the two transit programs.    In addition, the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOPS) is a new, growing source of  state funding, generated through the “Cap and Trade” program. This program is flexible, and  the two transit programs need to coordinate through SLOCOG for funding allocations. The  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 151   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 135   Proposition 1B Bond program also has some remaining funds that require coordination for  allocation.    SLOCOG’s Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) provides a good forum for  coordination between the two transit programs, as both the RTA and the City have membership  in the committee. In addition, the Rideshare program’s Ridership, Marketing and Outreach  Development Committee also considers transit issues on a region‐wide scale.    FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES    Base Fare Increases    One financial option is an increase in fares. The following are important considerations in  evaluating the need for a fare increase:     As discussed in Chapter 5 above, SLO Transit’s fare levels are largely in line with the base  fares of peer systems.     The key farebox return ratio (proportion of operating costs generated by fares) is  approximately 21 percent (as defined in the most recent Triennial Performance Audit for FY  2012/13). A comparison of fare revenues (including Cal Poly agreement revenues and RTA  revenue sharing income) shown in Table 3 with the total annual operating costs shown in  Table 1 indicates that the farebox return ratio for FY 2015/16 is slightly higher, at 22  percent. These figures are above the 20 percent minimum farebox return ratio required by  the Transportation Development Act, but less than the 27.4 percent identified as a standard  in the previous SRTP.     The last substantive fare increase occurred in 2009, when the base cash fare increased from  $1.00 to $1.25.6 Since that time, inflation has increased overall consumer costs by 11  percent, indicating that a fare of $1.38 in 2015 dollars is equivalent to the buying power of  $1.25 in 2009 dollar.     A base fare increase from $1.25 to $1.50 would be a logical step increase (if an increase were to  be pursued). This would be a 20 percent increase. Assuming that all fare media would increase  proportionally, this would result in a discount fare of $0.75, and monthly pass costs of $44.50  for general public, $15.00 for seniors/disabled, and $30 for local students.    An important factor is that only approximately 26 percent of existing SLO Transit passengers  currently purchase a 1‐way boarding, day‐pass, multi‐day pass, or monthly pass (and thus  would be impacted directly by this fare increase). Conducting an elasticity analysis of these  passengers, the fare increase would result in a loss of approximately 17,500 passenger  boardings per year. This is equivalent to 6.2 percent of existing cash/pass boardings, or 1.6                                                               6 Trolley fares were increased from $0.25 to $0.50 in November 2010.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 152 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 136 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     percent of all boardings. Considering the additional fare revenue generated by the remaining  cash/pass boarding as well as the loss of ridership, the net impact of this fare increase would be  to increase annual revenues by approximately $34,500. If the fare increase is used as a basis for  increasing the Cal Poly agreement funding levels proportionately, this would add approximately  an additional $83,000.    As discussed above, the ratio of the 31‐day pass to the base cash fare results in a 33 percent  discount for regular SLO Transit riders. While this is slightly below the average 40 percent  average discount of the peer systems, bringing SLO Transit in line with the peer average would  reduce revenues.    Changes in Fare Options and Discount Policies    The review of peer fare discount policies presented in Chapter 5 indicates that SLO Transit  provides a relatively modest discount for monthly pass users (33 percent) compared to the  peers. This indicates that an increase in monthly pass rates is not warranted, except as it would  occur as part of a broader fare increase.    SLO Transit offers an unusually wide range of fare options, including 1‐day, 3‐day, 5‐day, 7‐day  and 31‐day passes, as well as a punch pass. There are several disadvantages to providing a  plethora of fare options. The complicated fare structure can be potentially confusing to  passengers, require additional time for drivers to disburse and accept fares, and increase  bookkeeping costs. One alternative would be to eliminate the 3 day and 5 day pass, while  retaining the 7 day pass. This would bring SLO Transit in line with RTA multiday pass options.  Another option would be to retain the more popular 3‐day pass, eliminating the 5‐day and 7‐ day options. This second option would have less impact on existing ridership. Given the low  level of use and fare revenues generated by the 3‐ to 7‐day passes and that many persons  currently purchasing one type of pass would shift to another, the net impact of either option  would be negligible.    Another option would be to eliminate the multi‐ride pass, which currently provides 16 general  public boardings for $20, or 15 discount boardings for $9. This fare option is only used by 0.3  percent of all boarding passengers, or approximately 12 boardings per day. Passengers  currently using this fare option would largely shift to paying the cash fare. Eliminating this  relatively cumbersome fare option would speed boarding times, and simplify the  responsibilities of drivers and accounting staff. However, it is important to note that the  primary users of the multi‐ride pass are K‐12 students. The multi‐ride pass enables K‐12 users to  utilize transit without having exact change on hand. Serious consideration of elimination of this  pass type warrants further study as to the possible effects of this change on K‐12 riders.        ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 153   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 137   New Revenue Sources    There are also a number of funding sources that could potentially be tapped, as discussed  below:     Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) is a Federal program for projects that  reduce specific air pollutants from transportation‐related sources. The SLO Region is able to  access these funds due to the non‐attainment status of the eastern portion of the county  regarding ozone. Total region‐wide funds were $2.3 Million in 2013, and can be expected to  increase by 2 percent annually.     The Federal Transit Administration Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program provides  $428 Million nationwide. It is available to fixed‐route operators for bus purchase or  rehabilitation, for bus operations facilities and for transit passenger facilities. Within  California, the program is managed by Caltrans. The 2014 SLOCOG RTP assumes that  $100,000 per year would be available in the San Luis Obispo area, on average. Because of  the relatively modest annual funding level, these funds are typically pooled within the  region.     The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is an element of the Transit,  Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program established by the passage of  Senate Bill 862 in 2014. These funds are generated by greenhouse gas reduction funds  (“Cap and Trade” funds). In 2014, $25 Million was appropriated statewide, while going  forward 5 percent of total Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund revenues will be allocated to  LCTOP. Funds are allocated to each county under a formula by Caltrans. The program is  intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with a focus on low‐income communities (for  those areas that include areas designated as disadvantaged communities). For funds  allocated in 2015/16, the San Luis Obispo region is eligible for $291,000, region‐wide. These  funds must be targeted to transit operations, fare programs, or capital improvements that  enhances/expands transit mode share and that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. While  the program is intended to focus on disadvantaged communities, the State has not  designated any disadvantaged community areas in San Luis Obispo County. However,  without a State designation of disadvantaged communities, SLOCOG can recommend the  use of LCTOP funds for projects that target the needs of relatively disadvantaged  community areas. In FY 2015‐16, these funds were allocated towards South County Transit  to expand transit access by Oceano residents.     The majority of California counties with substantial urban population have become “self‐ help” counties through passage of a countywide transportation sales tax (up to a ½ cent,  under state authorizing legislation). In these 19 counties (including nearby Santa Barbara,  Monterey, and Fresno Counties), these tax revenues are key in funding a wide range of  highway, transit and bicycle/pedestrian improvements. Imposed countywide in San Luis  Obispo County, this source could generate up to approximately $25 Million annually. At  present, SLOCOG and others are considering detailed voter polling to evaluate voter  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 154 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 138 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     interests and preferences, including interest in expanding various elements of the region‐ wide transit program.       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 155  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 139   Chapter 8  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan    The following provides a comprehensive plan to improve the SLO Transit program over the  coming five years. Service enhancements are first presented. This is followed by capital  improvements, including fleet improvements, facility plans, passenger amenities, and other  capital items. Management and financial strategies are then identified. Finally, an  implementation plan is defined.    This discussion builds upon the review of conditions and alternatives presented in previous  chapters. The reader is encouraged to refer to these previous chapters for additional  information regarding the plan elements.    SERVICE PLAN    The service plan consists of a realignment of routes, as well as expansion to the hours of service  both in the school year as well as in the summer.    Revise the Route Structure    Based upon the review of existing service efficiency, public and staff input, and detailed  evaluation of a wide range of alternatives, a realignment of the route structure is  recommended. Overall, the route network should be reconfigured into a series of four bi‐ directional routes. In addition, it is recommended that the routes be renumbered, and A/B  designations be used to differentiate the direction of travel. The “A” routes will operate largely  clockwise and the “B” routes largely counterclockwise. A summary graphic of service  improvements is presented in Figure 36.                                                                                                                                  Revise Routes 1 and 3 to Create new Route 1A and Route 1B    Route 1A will be served in a clockwise direction, operated every 45 minutes using a single bus.  It will generally follow the existing Route 3, leaving downtown southeasterly along Johnson  Avenue. It turns southwest on Laurel Lane, then at Orcutt Road this route heads west to Broad  Street, where it heads southeast as far as Tank Farm Road. It then head east, turning right onto  Poinsettia Way and then Fuller Road before heading back to downtown via Broad Street and  Choro Street7.                                                                   7 In the future, this route could be modified to serve the Righetti Ranch development on the north side  of Tank Farm Road east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks with a short eastward extension on Tank  Farm Road, as a roundabout at the development access point on Tank Farm Road would provide a  convenient location to turn the bus around and serve a new stop. When Prado Road is extended  eastward to Broad Street, a similar short extension of this route could also be added to serve new  development in the Margarita Specific Plan Area.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 156 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 140 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     C a l C a l P o l yP o l y W e e e e d d S a n L u i sS a n L u i sO b i s p oO b i s p o 1 Br o a d S t Prado R d Hi g u e r a S t To r o S t Marsh S t S a n t a R o s a S t Elks L n Foo t h i l l R d Foothill Blvd C a l i f o r n i a B l v d Monte r e y S t Or c u t t R d C h o r r o S t Jo h n s o n A v e Lo s O s o s V a l l e y R d South St Tank Farm Rd 101 Ed n a R d Madon n a R d £¤101 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS usercommunity 0 1 20.5 Miles I Figure 36SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan Route 1A Route 1B Route 2A Route 2B Route 3A Route 3B Route 4A Route 4B LEGEND c c Route 3A Route 3B OTHER PLAN ELEMENTS - Extend Hours of Service During School Year- Provide Evening Service in Summer- Fleet Improvements- Bus Stop Improvements- Discounted Day Pass- Eliminate 5-Day and 7-Day Pass- Ongoing Coordination Route 4A Route 4Bc c Route 1A Route 1B Route 2A Route 2B Improve Transit Center Lighting Operations Facility Improvements c c c c c c c c c c dPotential Extensions to Serve New Development ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 157  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 141   Route 1B will serve a counterclockwise loop generally along Broad Street, Orcutt Road and  Johnson Avenue, similar to the southern portion of existing Route 1. One bus will provide  service every half‐hour.     These route revisions will provide the following overall advantages:     The extension of service along Broad Street as far south as Fuller Road will provide service  to a new neighborhood with high ridership potential. It will be within a convenient ¼ mile  walk from the employment center east of the airport.     Expands service availability by providing Route 1 service every 30 minutes, rather than  hourly with one bus. While Route 3 would be reduced from every 40 minutes to every 45  minutes, the total number of bus runs would increase from 29 per day to 36.     Provides two‐way service on Broad Street between Orcutt and Tank Farm, including a stop  on the same side of Broad Street as the Damon‐Garcia Sports Complex.     Provides evening service on both S. Broad Street and Johnson Avenue in the weekday  evenings (Route 1A).     The additional five minutes of running time on Route 1A (compared with existing Route 3)  will improve on‐time performance.     This strategy will eliminate service to three existing stop along Tank Farm Road between the  Poinsettia Way and Orcutt Road. However, these stops serve only a total of 21 boardings and  alightings each day (or an average of 10.5 boardings plus 10.5 alightings). The westernmost of  these stops (at Hollyhock Way) is also within a reasonable (900 feet) of a remaining stop to the  west. The substantial running time needed to serve these stops can serve more riders under  this new route plan.8 While it will also eliminate existing Route 1 service north of downtown,  this route segment currently generates low ridership, and service in this area will be added as  part of the Route 4A/4B services discussed below.    Revise Route 2 to Add Service to the Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road Corridors    Route 2 will be expanded to also serve the Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road corridors  west of US 101. A second bus will augment the one bus currently providing service every 40  minutes on Route 2 to provide hourly service in both directions along this larger route. Route  2A will operate the loop in a clockwise direction and Route 2B will operate it in a  counterclockwise direction. Both of these routes will also extend west on Los Osos Valley Road  to serve the Descanso loop. In addition, this route will serve the South Street/Santa Barbara  Avenue/Santa Rosa Street corridor, providing service every 30 minutes on this busy corridor.                                                               8 While these route modifications will also eliminate existing Route 1 service north of downtown, this service will  be picked up by other route revisions discussed below.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 158 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 142 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     This modification accomplishes the following:     Provides convenient transit connections in both directions between the South Higuera and  Madonna Road corridors, without the need to travel downtown.     Expands frequency between downtown and South/Higuera via Santa Rosa Street, Santa  Barbara Avenue and South Street, which is a high ridership area.      Reduces need for Routes 4 and 5 to provide frequency along Madonna Road, or to serve the  existing problematic turnaround at Auto Parkway.     Provides additional running time, allowing driver breaks.    Revise Routes 4 and 5 to Hourly Service, Move to California Blvd    Route 4 will be modified from half‐hourly service (operated using two buses) to hourly service  (using one bus) and renumbered as Route 3A. Similarly, Route 5 will be converted to hourly  service and renumbered as Route 3B. Between downtown and Cal Poly, both routes will use the  California Boulevard corridor (rather than the existing Grand Avenue corridor). In addition, the  extension east on Los Osos Valley Road to Auto Parkway will be eliminated. The benefits of  these modifications are as follows:     The route revision will reduce the route length by roughly 1.7 miles, thereby reducing  running time and improving on‐time performance.     The current inefficient use of resources on the western portions of Los Osos Valley Road  and Foothill Boulevard will be addressed, freeing up vehicles and hours/miles for more  effective use elsewhere.    The reduction in service along Madonna Road will be offset by the Route 2A/2B modification  discussed above, while the reduction in service along Grand Avenue will be offset by the Route  4A/4B service discussed below.    Revise Route 6A and 6B to a Bi‐Directional Loop Serving Cal Poly and Downtown     Existing Routes 6A and 6B will be revised into a single large loop connecting Cal Poly, the  Foothill Corridor and downtown, as shown in Figure 36. The clockwise route will be  redesignated as Route 4A, and the counterclockwise route will be Route 4B. During peak  daytime periods in the school year, two buses will be operated in each direction over the 40‐ minute loop, providing service every 20 minutes in each direction. In evenings, one bus will  operate Route 4A service every 30 minutes.    ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 159  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 143   This strategy will improve connections between the Foothill/Highland corridor and downtown  (and connecting bus services). It will also result in a simpler route structure that is easier for  passengers to understand.     Summary    A summary of the existing and planned service levels (excluding other routes not impacted by  these changes) is presented in Table 38. As shown, this plan (absent the expansion of hours of  service, as discussed below) will increase the annual number of runs by 2,613 (or 6 percent of  the existing total), increase the vehicle‐hours of service by 3,025 (or 9 percent), but only  increase vehicle‐miles of service by 2,189 (or 0.5 percent). This latter figure is particularly  pertinent, as the service contractor fee is based on the vehicle mileage. The plan also increases  the peak number of buses in operation by one vehicle.    Overall, this route realignment will:     Focus transit resources on areas with the greatest ridership potential.     Provide new cross‐town travel options between the Madonna Road corridor and the South  Higuera corridor.     Improve on‐time performance by building more layover time into the routes.     Increase service frequency in the key neighborhoods near the Cal Poly campus, and to/from  downtown.     Provide service to new neighborhoods and employment opportunities.    In addition, this route network provides flexibility to expand services in the future to serve new  developments, such as Righetti Ranch and the Margarita Area Specific Plan.    Extend Weekday Hours of Service During the School Year    The analysis of ridership patterns as well as public input indicates that expansion of the higher  daytime levels of service as well as the extension of hours of evening service levels are  warranted on specific routes. Evening service will be expanded during the school year.     Route 1B (existing Route 1) – Extend service until 8:09 PM     Route 2A/2B (existing Route 2) – Extend daytime service level until approximately 8:00 PM     Route 4A/4B (existing Route 6A/6B) – 20 minute frequency until 9:00 PM, and 40 minute  frequency until approximately 11:30 PM  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 160 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 144 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan            TA B L E  38 :  Pl a n  Se r v i c e  Qu a n t i t i e s Ro u t e Da y t i m e Ev e n i n g   No n ‐ Su m m e r Da y t i m e   No n ‐ Su m m e r Da y t i m e   Su m m e r Ev e n i n g D a y t i m e Ev e n i n g Da y t i m e Ev e n i n g We e k d a y   Da y t i m e We e k d a y   No n ‐ Su m m e r We e k d a y   Su m m e r We e k d a y   Ev e n i n g S a t u r d a y S u n d a y Ru n s Ho u r s M i l e s Ex i s t i n g  Ro u t e s 1 1 0 6 0 6 0 ‐‐ 10 . 2 1 0 . 2 1 . 0 0 ‐‐ 11 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 2 , 7 9 4 2 , 7 9 4 2 8 , 4 9 9 2 1 0 . 5 4 0 4 0 6 0 7 . 0 6 . 8 0 . 7 5 0 . 4 7 1 7 . 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 3 1 4 . 5 1 3 . 5 6 , 5 8 1 4 , 7 7 3 4 5 , 9 5 2 3 1 0 . 5 4 0 4 0 6 0 7 . 9 7 . 9 0 . 6 7 0 . 5 3 1 8 . 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 4 1 4 . 5 1 4 . 5 7 , 1 0 0 4 , 7 2 9 5 6 , 0 9 0 4 2 1 3 0 3 0 6 0 1 3 . 2 1 2 . 8 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 2 3 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 4. 5 1 0 1 0 7 , 8 2 6 7 , 8 2 6 1 0 2 , 7 1 5 5 2 0 3 0 3 0 ‐‐ 13 . 4 1 3 . 8 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 2 8 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 1 0 1 0 8 , 2 3 2 8 , 2 3 2 1 1 0 , 3 0 9 6A 1 0 . 5 3 0 6 0 6 0 4 . 2 4 . 2 0 . 5 0 0 . 5 0 ‐‐ 2 6 9 3 9 0 7 , 0 6 2 3 , 2 4 3 2 9 , 6 6 0 6B 1 0 . 5 3 0 6 0 6 0 4 . 4 4 . 4 0 . 5 0 0 . 5 0 ‐‐ 27 1 0 3 1 0 0 7 , 3 5 6 3 , 3 9 0 3 2 , 3 6 6 TO T A L 9 3 46 , 9 5 1 3 4 , 9 8 6 4 0 5 , 5 9 2 Pl a n  Ro u t e s  ‐ ‐   Ex i s t i n g  Sp a n  of  Se r v i c e 1A 1 1 4 5 4 5 4 5 7 . 9 7 . 9 0 . 7 5 0 . 7 5 1 8 . 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 4 1 4 . 5 1 4 . 5 7 , 1 0 0 5 , 3 2 5 5 6 , 0 9 0 1B 1 0 3 0 3 0 ‐‐ 5. 7 5 . 7 0 . 5 0 ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 5 , 3 3 4 2 , 6 6 7 3 0 , 4 0 4 2A 1 1 6 0 6 0 6 0 1 1 . 0 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 1 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 3 1 0 1 0 4 , 7 4 4 4 , 7 4 4 5 2 , 1 8 4 2B 1 0 6 0 6 0 ‐‐ 11 . 7 1 1 . 7 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 3 , 0 4 8 3 , 0 4 8 3 5 , 6 6 2 3A 1 1 6 0 6 0 6 0 1 1 . 5 1 1 . 5 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 1 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 4. 5 1 0 1 0 5 , 0 3 2 5 , 0 3 2 5 7 , 8 6 8 3B 1 0 6 0 6 0 ‐‐ 11 . 6 1 1 . 6 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 1 0 1 0 4 , 9 3 0 4 , 9 3 0 5 7 , 1 8 8 4A 2 0 2 0 4 0 ‐‐ 6. 0 6 . 0 0 . 6 7 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 39 2 0 0 1 4 0 8 , 7 2 8 5 , 8 1 3 5 2 , 3 6 8 4B 2 1 2 0 4 0 3 0 6 . 2 6 . 2 0 . 6 7 0 . 5 0 ‐‐ 39 2 0 5 1 4 0 1 0 , 6 4 8 6 , 4 5 2 6 6 , 0 1 8 TO T A L 1 0 4 49 , 5 6 4 3 8 , 0 1 1 4 0 7 , 7 8 1 Ch a n g e 1 1 2, 6 1 3 3 , 0 2 5 2 , 1 8 9 Pl a n  Ro u t e s  ‐ ‐   Ex p a n d e d  Sp a n  of  Se r v i c e  Du r i n g  th e  Sc h o o l  Ye a r 1A 1 1 4 5 4 5 4 5 7 . 9 7 . 9 0 . 7 5 0 . 7 5 1 8 . 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 4 1 4 . 5 1 4 . 5 7 , 1 0 0 5 , 3 2 5 5 6 , 0 9 0 1B 1 0 3 0 3 0 ‐‐ 5. 7 5 . 7 0 . 5 0 ‐‐ 25 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 6 , 3 5 0 3 , 1 7 5 3 6 , 1 9 5 2A 1 1 6 0 6 0 6 0 1 1 . 0 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 1 4 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 3 1 0 1 0 5 , 2 5 2 5 , 2 5 2 5 7 , 7 7 2 2B 1 0 6 0 6 0 ‐‐ 11 . 7 1 1 . 7 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 4 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 3 , 5 5 6 3 , 5 5 6 4 1 , 6 0 5 3A 1 1 6 0 6 0 6 0 1 1 . 5 1 1 . 5 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 1 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 4. 5 1 0 1 0 5 , 0 3 2 5 , 0 3 2 5 7 , 8 6 8 3B 1 0 6 0 6 0 ‐‐ 11 . 6 1 1 . 6 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 1 0 1 0 4 , 9 3 0 4 , 9 3 0 5 7 , 1 8 8 4A 2 0 2 0 4 0 ‐‐ 6. 0 6 . 0 0 . 6 7 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 41 2 0 4 1 4 0 1 0 , 6 4 8 6 , 5 8 0 6 3 , 8 8 8 4B 2 1 2 0 4 0 3 0 6 . 2 6 . 2 0 . 6 7 0 . 5 0 ‐‐ 41 2 0 9 1 4 0 1 2 , 5 6 8 7 , 2 1 9 7 7 , 9 2 2 TO T A L 1 0 4 55 , 4 3 6 4 1 , 0 7 0 4 4 8 , 5 2 8 Ch a n g e  Fr o m  Re v i s e d  Ro u t e s ,  Ex i s t i n g  Sp a n  of  Se r v i c e 8, 4 8 5 6 , 0 8 3 4 2 , 9 3 6 Pl a n  Ro u t e s  ‐ ‐   Su m m e r  Ev e n i n g  Se r v i c e 1A 1 1 4 5 4 5 4 5 7 . 9 7 . 9 0 . 7 5 0 . 7 5 1 8 . 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 4 1 4 . 5 1 4 . 5 7 , 3 4 8 5 , 5 1 1 5 8 , 0 4 9 1B 1 0 3 0 3 0 ‐‐ 5. 7 5 . 7 0 . 5 0 ‐‐ 21 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 5 , 3 3 4 2 , 6 6 7 3 0 , 4 0 4 2A 1 1 6 0 6 0 6 0 1 1 . 0 1 1 . 0 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 1 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 3 1 0 1 0 4 , 9 3 0 4 , 9 3 0 5 4 , 2 3 0 2B 1 0 6 0 6 0 ‐‐ 11 . 7 1 1 . 7 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 0 0 3 , 0 4 8 3 , 0 4 8 3 5 , 6 6 2 3A 1 1 6 0 6 0 6 0 1 1 . 5 1 1 . 5 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 0 1 2 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 4. 5 1 0 1 0 5 , 2 4 9 5 , 2 4 9 6 0 , 3 6 4 3B 1 0 6 0 6 0 ‐‐ 11 . 6 1 1 . 6 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 5 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 0 1 0 1 0 4 , 9 3 0 4 , 9 3 0 5 7 , 1 8 8 4A 2 0 2 0 4 0 ‐‐ 6. 0 6 . 0 0 . 6 7 ‐‐ ‐ ‐ 39 2 0 0 1 4 0 8 , 7 2 8 5 , 8 1 3 5 2 , 3 6 8 4B 2 1 2 0 4 0 3 0 6 . 2 6 . 2 0 . 6 7 0 . 5 0 ‐‐ 39 2 0 5 1 4 0 1 1 , 2 6 8 6 , 6 5 9 6 9 , 8 6 2 TO T A L 1 0 4 50 , 8 3 5 3 8 , 8 0 7 4 1 8 , 1 2 6 Ch a n g e  Fr o m  Re v i s e d  Ro u t e s ,  Ex i s t i n g  Sp a n  of  Se r v i c e 3, 8 8 4 3 , 8 2 0 1 2 , 5 3 4 Pe a k  Bu s e s Tr i p s  pe r  Da y A n n u a l He a d w a y  (M i n u t e s ) R o u t e  Le n g t h  (M i ) H o u r s  pe r  Ru n ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 161   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 145   Also, both Routes 3A and 3B will operate in the evenings. In the morning, service will start  earlier on the following routes:     Route 1B (existing Route 1) – One earlier run starting at 6:15 AM     Route 3A (existing Route 4) ‐‐ One additional run starting at 6:10 AM    In addition to generating ridership, this has the benefit of making the start times more  consistent over the system (with the exception of Route 6a and 6b, focusing on Cal Poly).    Provide Evening Service in the Summer    A common comment heard over the course of this study from passengers as well as other  members of the public is the desirability of providing year‐round evening service on weekdays  The following routes will be operated on weekday evenings between June 10th and Labor Day  weekend:     Route 1A (revised existing Route 3) until approximately 9:45 PM   Route 2A (revised existing Route 2) until approximately 9:45 PM   Route 3A (revised existing Routes 4) until approximately 10:00 PM   Route 4B (revised existing Routes 6A and 6B) until 10:30 PM, at 30 minute frequency    Together, summer evening service will be provided to all areas within the fixed route service  network.    Consider Serving Laguna Middle School Near Bell Times    SLO Transit should investigate providing scheduled service to a stop along Laguna Lane adjacent  to Laguna Middle School once a day in each direction to accommodate Middle School students.   There is a need for service arriving from the northwest in the morning (via Route 4B), and  departing towards the northwest in the afternoon (via Route 4A). Classes typically start at 8:15  AM, and end at 2:59 PM. This will require detailed discussions with School District staff, as well  as evaluation of routing options.    CAPITAL PLAN    Fleet Improvement Plan    As discussed above, the service plan will expand the number of buses in operation at peak by  one. There is adequate vehicles in the current fleet to provide this additional bus. More  important to the fleet plan is the replacement of buses, as well as providing additional seating  capacity.     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 162 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 146 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     The City strives to replace buses based on a 12‐year useful life, though limitations on funding  sometimes constrain replacement schedules. Table 39 presents the fleet improvement  schedule.  As shown, SLO Transit faces a substantial bus replacement challenge in FY 2016/17  and FY 2019/20, with a total of 9 buses needing replacement. This excludes any additional  buses needed to implement service improvements. Developing adequate local funds to finance  this fleet improvement will be addressed in the financial plan.        Vehicle Size    The appropriate bus capacity for SLO Transit has been a popular subject of discussion over  recent years. While some routes (existing Routes 1, 2 and 3) have passenger activity levels that  are appropriate for a 30‐foot to 40‐foot bus), Routes 4, 5 and 6A all have multiple runs during  the academic year with loads exceeding the seating capacity of a 40‐foot bus. In addition,  within the current 2015 academic year, overcrowding on Route 6B has become increasingly  apparent on several trips. As such, SLO Transit has begun scheduling regular “chase “or  “tripper” vehicles, adding to operating costs.     As one strategy to expand capacity without adding operating costs, the fleet currently includes  the single Alexander Dennis double decker bus (with a seating capacity of 81). Operationally,  the use of a double decker bus is more compatible with the relatively short block length and  limited curb space in downtown San Luis Obispo, in comparison with a 60‐foot articulated bus  (the other option for additional capacity). In general, the public opinion on the use of the  double decker bus has been positive, with initial negative reactions fading over time.     One disadvantage of the current fleet occurs when the only double decker bus is not available  due to maintenance and is replaced with a standard bus. The resulting overcrowding (and  TABLE 39: SLO Transit Bus Replacement Schedule Year /  Unit Make Model Year Length Capacity Replace With Cost 2016/17 754 Gillig Low Floor 2007 30 23/2 wc Low Floor $ 500,000 755 Gillig Low Floor 2007 30 23/2 wc Low Floor $ 500,000 $ 1,000,000 2019/20 856 Double K Trolley 2008 30 24/2 WC Trolley $ 450,000 857 Gillig Low Floor 2008 40 36/2 WC Low Floor $ 536,000 858 Gillig Low Floor 2008 40 36/2 WC Low Floor $ 536,000 859 Gillig Low Floor 2008 40 36/2 WC Low Floor $ 536,000 860 Gillig Low Floor 2008 40 36/2 WC Low Floor $ 536,000 861 Gillig Low Floor 2008 35 32/2WC Double Deck $ 941,000 862 Gillig Low Floor 2008 35 32/2WC Double Deck $ 941,000 $ 4,476,000 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 163  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 147   passengers left at the curb) was a common complaint in the onboard surveys. This indicates  that a backup double decker bus would be beneficial.    Given the current passenger loads, the potential for increased passenger loads in the future  (generated by factors such as expansion of Cal Poly student levels), and the operational  considerations, it is recommended that the fleet of double deck buses be expanded to three.     The additional capacity of a double‐decker bus (81 seats versus 36 seats on a typical low‐floor  bus) benefits SLO Transit in two ways. First, by allowing one driver to transport twice the  number of passengers, the operating cost required to meet the peak passenger demands on  the busier runs is substantially reduced. Secondly, the fewer number of buses required in the  fleet reduces the total required footprint of the transit operations facility, which is an important  consideration given the limitations on land at the facility.    Alternative Fuels    As an area of relatively good air quality, San Luis Obispo avoids the need to invest in  alternatives fuels (such as compressed natural gas) in order to address impacts on particulate  emissions. Diesel fueled vehicles thus are appropriate means of addressing this key transit‐ related pollution concern of the last few decades.    Going forward, the focus (particularly within California) will be on reducing transit’s impact on  greenhouse gas emissions. While standard alternatives to diesel fuel such as CNG do not  materially change greenhouse gas emission rates, advances in all‐electric bus technologies hold  the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions9. Improvements in battery technology (led in  large part by research conducted for automobiles) have begun to address the range limitations  in electric battery buses to the point where some all‐electric (non‐hybrid) bus models can travel  150 to 200 miles or more on a single charge. This is well in excess of the daily mileage for many  of the SLO Transit routes, making electric vehicles a feasible option for SLO Transit. San Luis  Obispo’s relatively mild climate also means that heating and cooling the bus is not as much a  drain on the batteries as is found in more extreme climate locations. While per‐unit costs are  presently high (in the range of $750,000), future advances and the benefits of mass production  may bring prices down to the point where they are a feasible option for local transit services.  SLO Transit should monitor advances in this technology, and consider this alternative prior to  future bus procurements.    SLO Transit can also reduce the environmental impacts of fuel use by pursuing alternatives  sources of power for facilities.  In particular, solar panel installations have become common in  transit facility projects and would help to reduce the transit program’s overall environmental  footprint.  Alternative fuels should be pursued in future facility upgrades.                                                                 9 Assuming a low or zero emission source of electricity    ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 164 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 148 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     New Bus Stops    The route modifications identified above will require the establishment of new bus stops at the  following locations:    Route 1A   Broad/Rockview (southbound)   Broad/Damon Garcia Sports Complex (southbound)   Tank Farm / Poinsettia   Poinsettia / Bluebell   Poinsettia / Fuller   Fuller / Broad    Route 2A / 2B   Los Osos Valley Road / S. Higuera Street (both directions)   Los Osos Valley Road / Calle Joaquin (both directions)    Note that the specific location at each site will be dependent upon a detailed review of land  availability, traffic operations, and impact on adjacent properties.    Bus Stop Improvement Plan    Bus stops are an important element of a successful public transit system. Particularly for transit  services with a high number of relatively short trips, many passengers can spend more time at  their boarding stop waiting for the bus than actually traveling on the bus. As such, providing an  attractive, comfortable and safe place to wait for the bus is key in passenger’s overall  perception of the transit program, and can well make or break an individual’s decision to be a  regular transit user.    SLO staff recently conducted a review of specific bus stops. The Consultant Team expanded on  the results of this review, and included a review of existing transit boardings at each stop.  Including the new stops needed to serve the revised routes, the resulting list of improvements  by location is shown in Table 40:     Shelter locations were identified based upon the current SLO Transit standard to provide  shelters at stops with 25 or more total daily boardings. A total of 15 locations were  identified, of which four have activity that warrants a shelter larger than the standard 9 foot  length.     Bench locations (beyond those provided in the shelters) were identifying by applying a  standard of 10 boarding or more per day. This yielded a total of five locations that do not  already have shelters or benches (including the existing stop at Tank Farm/Poinsettia that  will need to be relocated). In addition, benches should be provided at seven of the new  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 165 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 150 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan       TABLE 40: Recommended SLO Transit Bus Stop Improvements Stop #Ro u t e  1 Ro u t e  2 Ro u t e  3 Ro u t e  4A Ro u t e  4B Ro u t e  5A Ro u t e  5B Ro u t e  6A Ro u t e  6B Total Daily  Boardings Recommended Amenity ###Patricia & Foothill 40 Replace Bench With Shelter, Trash Can Foothill & La Entrada 83 Replace Bench With Large Shelter, Trash Can Highland & Cuesta 94 Provide Large Shelter, Trash Can Patricia & Highland 25 Provide Shelter, Trash Can Foothill & Ferrini 37 Provide Shelter Casa & Deseret 31 Provide Shelter, Trash Can Murray & Casa 79 Replace Bench With Large Shelter, Trash Can LOVR & Auto Park Way 29 Provide Shelter, Trash Can Ramona & Tassajara 155 Provide Large Shelter, Trash Can, Electronic Sign Mill & Santa  Rosa 45 Replace Bench With Shel ter, Trash Can Mill & Johnson 34 Replace Bench With Shelter, Trash Can Mill & Pepper 63 Replace Bench With Shelter, Trash Can Phillips & Pepper 43 Provide Shelter, Trash Can California & Phillips 39 Provide Shelter, Trash Can Foothill & Cuesta 24 Provide Shelter, Trash Can Highland & Jeffrey 19 Provide Bench Foothill & Casa 12 Provide Bench Grand & Wilson 10 Provide Bench Grand & McCollum 12 Provide Bench Ramona & Palomar 233 Provide Electronic  Sign 285 Provide Electronic  Sign Mill & Grand 116 Provide Electronic Sign Grand & Abbott 172 Provide Electronic  Sign Broad & Rockview ‐‐Sign Only Broad & Damon Garcia  Pk ‐‐Provide Bench Tank Farm & Poinsettia ‐‐Provi de Bench Poinsettia & Bluebell ‐‐Sign Only Poinsettia & Fuller ‐‐Sign Only Fuller & Broad ‐‐Provide Bench LOVR & S. Higuera ‐‐Provide Bench LOVR & S. Higuera ‐‐Provide Bench LOVR & Calle Joaquin ‐‐Provide Bench LOVR & Calle Joaquin ‐‐Provide Bench Also provide bike racks at approximately 10 stops Also provide/repair red curb at approximately 75 stops COST ESTIMATE Total  Cost New Stops 10 $20,000 Large Shelter 4 $46,400 Shelter 11 $114,400 Bench 11 $8,800 Note: Assuming re‐use of replaced benches Trash Can 14 $11,200 Electronic Sign 5 $25,000 Bike Rack 10 $5,000 Improve Red Curbs 75 $22,500 $253,300 New Route 2B New Route 2A New Route 2B $2,000 New Route 1A New Route 1A New Route 1A New Route 1A New Route 1A New Route 2A $800 $300 $5,000 $500 Number of  Units Cost per Unit  (Ins talled) $11,600 $10,400 $1,300 Location Performing Arts  Center New Route 1A Route (Existing) Served ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 166 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 150 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     stops, for a total of 11 new benches. As more than 11 existing benches will be replaced by  shelters, these existing benches can be re‐used at the new locations.     Trash cans should be provided at all shelter locations. This requires an additional 14 trash  cans.     Electronic transit information sign locations were identified as those stops with 100 or  more daily boardings, totaling five locations not already equipped with a sign (at  Foothill/Blarney, Ramona/Tassajara, Ramona/Palomar, Mill/Grand, and Grand/Abbott).     Bike racks are also recommended at additional locations. In addition to providing an  amenity for passengers, racks can reduce property damage associated with locking bikes to  trees and fences, and can help address shortages of bus bike capacity. Defining specific  locations will require a detailed review of current bike use, available space, and consistency  with bicycle facility plans. For budgeting purposes, 10 additional bike racks are included in  this plan.    In addition, at approximately 75 stops red curb paint is needed to indicate no parking at bus  stops, or existing paint needs repainting.  Including an average of $2,000 for improvements  (such as wheelchair pads) needed at the ten new stops, the total costs associated with bus stop  improvements is estimated to be $253,300.    Downtown Transit Center    A weak point of the regional San Luis Obispo public transit network is the existing transit hub in  downtown San Luis Obispo (Government Center). This currently consists of a SLO Transit facility  on the west side of Osos Street between Mill Street and Palm Street, and an RTA facility on the  east side of Osos Street between Monterey Street and Palm Street. The SLO Transit facility  provides sawtooth bays for up to five buses along with shelter structures. The RTA facility  provides approximately 200 feet of straight curb (adequate to accommodate up to four buses,  depending on the order that individual buses arrive), along with two 20‐foot shelters. This  overall facility has a long list of deficiencies:     There is inadequate space for all RTA buses at peak times, resulting in buses that park  around the corner on Palm (potentially conflicting with other uses), or that end up parked  at an angle to the curb. This can block travel lanes on Osos Street, and also increase hazards  to passengers boarding/alighting the bus and preclude deployment of the wheelchair  lift/ramp.     The number of bays available for SLO Transit limits the ability to schedule services to  maximize direct bus‐to‐bus transfers.    ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 167   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 151    While there are restrooms available at nearby public buildings (City Hall, Library), these are  only available during operating hours.     Transferring between the SLO Transit and RTA systems requires walking across two streets.     Both blocks are on a grade that exceeds the desired maximum slope of a facility as defined  by the ADA (2 percent)10. This creates challenges to wheelchair users transferring between  buses, and can also increase hazards associated with using a lift or ramp.     Bus shelter capacity is inadequate at peak times, particularly for RTA passengers. The south‐ facing passenger shelters also cause passenger discomfort during afternoon periods due to  inadequate shade.     There is inadequate street lighting for night‐time operations, as well as to address personal  security concerns.     The 8’ wide sidewalks adjacent to the RTA bus locations get congested, particularly when a  wheelchair lift or ramp is in use.    SLOCOG is leading an ongoing effort to construct a new, enhanced transit center along Higuera  Street in the block between Santa Rosa Street and Toro Street. The current focus is on  developing a joint public/private project that would include the transit center as well as a public  parking structure. The feasibility of this concept and the source of the necessary public funding  have yet to be determined. Per the 2012 downtown transit center study and further analysis, if  constructed, the facility is envisioned to consist of the following:     Up to 11 bus bays (though 13‐16 bus bays were included in the original project scope)   Indoor and outdoor passenger waiting areas   Driver break area and operational space   Restrooms   Transit information counter    Given that completion of a new transit center is at best several years in the future, and in light  of the importance of this facility to both the RTA and City of SLO systems, a modest level of  improvements to the existing facility is warranted. At the SLO facility, street lighting should be  enhanced. $40,000 is included in the plan for this element.    Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility    SLO Transit currently operates out of a Transit Operations & Maintenance Facility located on  Prado Road adjacent to US 101. This facility consists of bus bays totaling 10,600 square feet in                                                               10 ADA regulations allow greater slopes for bus bays along streets with greater slopes, so long as the existing slope  is not increased.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 168 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 152 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     floor area, along with a 5,480 square foot Administration and Maintenance building. Over the  40 years since its construction in 1976, the use requirements for this facility have shifted. In  particular, the need for a training classroom has required that a portion of a maintenance bay  be partitioned off. The resulting space is noisy and not climate controlled, resulting in a poor  learning environment.     City and contractor staff has developed a strategy to repurpose the existing Parts Room as a  classroom, and move the parts storage function to the area currently used for training. This will  require provision of walls, installing doors, and electrical and finish work, as well as shelving in  the new parts area. Design work is estimated to equal $45,000, and construction costs are  estimated to total $175,000.    The maintenance space also warrants expansion. The existing two bays limits the ability to work  efficiently on multiple vehicles, and can require inefficient jockeying of buses in and out of the  bays. Transit industry standards (such as those presented in the US Department of  Transportation’s Transit Garage Planning Guidelines: A Review indicates that four maintenance  bays would optimally be provided.     In addition, parking at the site is constrained, both for buses as well as for employee vehicles.  The site provides 19 bus parking bays, which is not much above the current fleet size, and the  provision of at least three additional bus bays would improve operations and accommodate  growth in the fleet. The limited on‐site parking currently requires some staff parking on the  adjacent access drive, reducing the security and convenience of staff parking. The City is  currently considering options for the overall site that could increase parking capacity, such as  modifications to the adjacent corporation yard or sewage treatment plant. These additional  improvements will cost on the order of $3.0 to $3.5 Million.    Coordinate Joint Bus Shelter Program    SLO Transit should combine boarding data with RTA to review activity at shared stops, and  program new shelters at locations where 25 or more passengers per day board. Costs for  improvements should be shared based upon the proportion of boarding by each system.    MANAGEMENT PLAN    Management plan elements consist of revisions to SLO Transit service standards, as well as  strategies to improve coordination among transit programs in the region.    Revise Service Standards    Based upon the review of existing RTA service goals, policies and standards, as well as the  current service performance, the following revisions are recommended:    ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 169   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 153    The transit program should develop and adopt its own department Mission Statement  separate from the City’s overall Mission Statement.      The service span standards for weekends (6 AM to 7 PM) should be revised to 8 AM to 6  PM, reflecting the low ridership potential in these first and last hours on weekends.     A road call rate standard of “no less than 6,000 vehicle service miles per road call” be  adopted.      A safety standard of 1 preventable accident per 100,000 should be adopted.     The passenger comfort standard of providing a shelter for stops with 25 or more boardings  per day should be reduced to 20 or more boardings per day.     The public information standard should be modified to include website and social media.    Continue and Expand Coordination Efforts with RTA    This planning process has underlined the importance of building on the strong coordination  between SLO Transit and RTA. It is recommended that the senior management of both transit  programs meet on a quarterly basis to continue coordination efforts. The following are topics  that are recommended as a starting point:     Work Towards A Single Regional Bus Tracker Website – Optimally, a transit passenger  could visit a single website or download a single app that would show all regional buses on  the same map. As the SLO Transit and RTA bus tracker programs are developed on differing  software platforms, this is a challenging endeavor. However, it remains a valid goal and an  important strategy to making the regional transit network operate as a convenient system  for the passenger.     Develop A Single ID For Persons With Disabilities Accepted On Both Systems – The  regional system would be easier for persons with disabilities to navigate and overall  administrative costs reduced by developing a single ID program good for boarding both  systems at discount fare (or free fare, for persons eligible for Runabout). This should include  a magnetic stripe to allow convenient tracking of boardings by fare category.     Coordinated Policy On Baggage – Policies regarding items allowed on the buses (groceries,  shopping carts, strollers, etc.) would optimally be consistent between the two systems. At  present, SLO Transit’s policy is “Carrying objects blocking aisle or stairway or occupying seat  is prohibited, except at driver’s discretion if space allows; stroller must be folded prior to  boarding” while RTA’s policy is “Carry‐on items (including folded strollers) must be held or  secured to protect other passengers in case of a sudden stop and must not block the aisles or  exits” while A consistent policy would avoid confusion or conflict as to what is allowed.   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 170 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 154 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan        Joint Driver Training On Managing Difficult Passengers – In recent years there has been an  increase on both SLO Transit and RTA in passengers causing conflicts with other passengers  or drivers. While drivers in both systems already have training in this matter, there are  specialized training classes available that could aid drivers in difficult situations. Joint  training would be both cost‐effective, and would help ensure that both transit systems  address these issues in a consistent manner. As a starting point, the lead trainers from the  SLO Transit contractor and from RTA should meet along with Community Action Partnership  of San Luis Obispo County staff to discuss opportunities.     Work Towards a Common Bus Replacement Policy ‐‐ At present, the City has a standard of  “clean and good conditions” regarding revenue equipment while RTA has an adopted policy  to “Replace 100 percent of all revenue vehicles no more than 40 percent beyond the FTA‐ defined useful life standard in terms of years or miles” while. A consistent policy between  the two systems could help ensure that limited Federal and state funding resources are best  used to maintain the region’s transit fleets in good condition, and merits ongoing  discussion.     FINANCIAL PLAN    Monitor the Need to Increase Fares    No fare increases are proposed under this plan. As discussed below, the overall SLO Transit  funding balance is sufficient to negate the need for fare increases under current financial  expectations. However, there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding future funding figures,  particularly at the state and Federal levels. As part of the annual budgeting process, fare  revenues should be reviewed to determine if changes in fares are necessary to continue to fund  a high quality of transit service for the region.    Offer Discount Regional Day Pass    SLO Transit currently allows seniors age 65 to 79 and persons with disabilities to board the bus  at a 50% discount fare when using cash and at a 66% discount when using the 31‐day regional  pass, and the 31‐day RTA pass. However, no discount is available when using the $5 regional  day pass. A discounted $2.50 regional day pass is recommended to increase transit usage  between the various transit systems among persons in the discount categories. While this is  estimated to reduce SLO Transit fare revenues by $3,800 per year, it will increase ridership by  1,100 new boardings per year.     Eliminate the 7‐Day Pass and 5‐Day Pass    SLO Transit offers an unusually high number of fare options. This costs the system in terms of  managing and accounting for the various fare media, and complicates the boarding process  (and the bus driver’s workload).  A review of the level of use shows that the 5‐day and 7‐day  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 171   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 155   passes have very low use levels, at only approximately 1,200 boardings per year by each of  these two options. In total, only 0.2 percent of SLO Transit passengers use these two fare  options. In comparison, over 4,000 boardings per year are made using the 3‐day pass.  Accordingly, the 5‐day and 7‐day pass should be eliminated.    Consider a Stored Value Card Fare Option as Replacement to the Punch Pass    SLO Transit currently offers a punch card fare option, which is not frequently used (only  approximately 2,000 boardings per year). An increasingly common alternative among transit  agencies is a stored value card (“smart card”) with either an RFID chip or magnetic strip to store  the remaining value of the card. This has a number of benefits, including (1) faster boarding  speeds, (2) better ability to track usage, (3) the ability to deduct any amount of fare (rather  than being constrained by the various punch values). Costs vary substantially depending upon  the capabilities of fareboxes, and the need for equipment to produce the cards. SLO Transit  should consider the relative costs and benefits of a stored value card.     Potential Countywide Half‐Cent Sales Tax Increase    SLOCOG is currently evaluating the potential for a county wide “local option” sales tax increase  to fund a wide range of transportation improvements. This could be important in supporting  improvements, particularly the expansion of the hours of SLO Transit service during the school  year and the establishment of evening service in the summer. Given the current uncertainty  regarding this new funding source, it is not included in the financial plan discussed below.    Fund SLO Transit Through Fares and Existing Subsidy Sources    The following methodology was utilized in developing this Financial Plan:     First, forecasts of annual operating and administrative costs were developed, as presented  in Table 41 for FY 2016/17 through FY 2020/21. “Base case” operating and administrative  cost forecasts were estimated based on the existing revised budget. The service  enhancements are included in the second year of the plan (FY 2017/18). Per SLOCOG  planning criteria, a 2 percent rate of inflation was assumed through 2018/19, and 3 percent  thereafter, in the absence of any change in service levels. Next, operating and  administrative cost estimates were identified for each SRTP element, based upon the  analyses presented in previous sections of this document, and consistent with the  implementation plan presented below. These costs were also factored to reflect the  assumed rate of inflation. Operating and administrative costs by the fifth year of the plan  will total approximately $3,728,800 which is 6.8 percent over the base‐case cost of  $3,492,200.       ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 172 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 156 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan          Next, ridership for each SRTP element was estimated, as presented in the top portion of  Table 42. The “base case” ridership reflects expected ridership assuming no changes in  service. The ridership impact of each Plan element is then identified and summed. This  includes the ridership generated by the new discount Day Pass, as discussed above. As new  services do not immediately attain the full potential ridership, the net new ridership on the  revised routes and the extended hours of service during the school year is factored to  reflect 80 percent of potential ridership in the first year of service and 95 percent of  potential ridership in the second year. Ridership is expected to respond relatively slowly to  the summer evening service (66 percent in the first year, and 90 percent in the second  year).  By FY 2019/20, ridership is forecast to equal 1,287,100 one‐way passenger‐trips per  year, which is 101,200 trips over the base case forecast of 1,185,200. This indicates that the  plan will result in an 11.9 percent increase in ridership by the end of the plan period. Of  note, this percentage increase in ridership exceeds the percentage increase in operating  costs, thus indicating an enhanced productivity of the service.     Based on the ridership figures, the estimated farebox revenues are presented in the bottom  of Table 42. Reflecting that many SLO Transit passengers board without a fare, the growth  in direct farebox revenue is relatively modest. By the end of the plan period the service  improvements will increase fares by $3,300 per year (including the loss in fares associated  with the discount Day Pass), or 1.3 percent over the base case fares.     The next element necessary in the development of the SRTP is estimation of the capital cost  for vehicles, passenger amenities, passenger facility improvements and operating  equipment, as shown in Table 43 for each year of the Short Range Transit Plan period.  Transit Operations/Maintenance Facility costs for the interior remodel are assumed for the  first year of the plan period, with 15% of the larger parking/garage improvements assigned  in Year 2 and 85% in Year 3. Bus stop improvements are spread across the five plan years,  adjusted for inflation. The lighting improvements at Government Center are identified in        All Figures in Thousands Plan Element FY16‐17 FY17‐18 FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY 20‐21 5‐Year  Plan  Total Base Case Operating Costs $3,163.9 $3,227.2 $3,291.7 $3,390.5 $3,492.2 $16,565.5 Operating Plan Elements Route Realignment $0.0 $9.4 $9.6 $9.9 $10.2 $39.0 Extend Hours  of  Service During the School Year $0.0 $50.5 $177.6 $182.9 $188.4 $599.5 Provide Evening Service in the Summer $0.0 $44.2 $45.0 $46.4 $47.8 $183.4 Total: Service Plan Elements $0.0 $95.1 $223.1 $229.8 $236.6 $784.6 Total With Plan Elements $3,163.9 $3,322.3 $3,514.8 $3,620.2 $3,728.8 $17,350.0 Percent Increase over Base Case 0.0% 2.9% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 4.7% Base Case costs based upon FY 2015‐16 Amended Budget, excluding capital  and management contract costs Inflation assumptions identified  in the SLOCOG RTP were applied: two percent annual inflation through 2018/19, and three percent thereafter Source: LSC  Transportation Consultants, Inc. TABLE 41 : SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan Operating Costs ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 173   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 157                Al l  Fi g u r e s  in  Th o u s a n d s Pl a n   El e m e n t FY 1 6 ‐17 F Y 1 7 ‐18 F Y 1 8 ‐19 F Y 1 9 ‐20 F Y  20 ‐21 5 ‐Ye a r  Pl a n   To t a l Ba s e  Ca s e  Ri d e r s h i p  (1 ) To t a l 1, 1 5 7 . 1 1 , 1 6 4 . 1 1 , 1 7 1 . 1 1 , 1 7 8 . 1 1 , 1 8 5 . 2 5 , 8 5 5 . 6 Se r v i c e  Pl a n  El e m e n t s Ro u t e  Re a l i g n m e n t 0. 0 4 7 . 7 5 7 . 0 6 0 . 4 6 0 . 7 2 2 5 . 8 Ex t e n d  Ho u r s  of  Se r v i c e  Du r i n g  th e  Sc h o o l   Ye a r 0 . 0 7 . 3 3 0 . 0 3 1 . 8 3 1 . 9 1 0 1 . 0 Pr o v i d e  Ev e n i n g   Se r v i c e  in  th e  Su m m e r 0. 0 5 . 3 7 . 3 8 . 2 8 . 2 2 9 . 0 To t a l :  Se r v i c e  Pl a n  El e m e n t s 0. 0 6 0 . 3 9 4 . 3 1 0 0 . 4 1 0 0 . 8 3 5 5 . 8 Di s c o u n t  Re g i o n a l  Da y  Pa s s  Fa r e 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 To t a l  Ri d e r s h i p 1, 1 5 8 . 2 1 , 2 2 5 . 5 1 , 2 6 6 . 5 1 , 2 7 9 . 6 1 , 2 8 7 . 1 5 , 0 5 8 . 6 % Gr o w t h  ov e r  Ba s e  Ca s e 0. 1 % 5 . 3 % 8 . 2 % 8 . 7 % 8 . 7 % % Gr o w t h  ov e r  FY  15 ‐16 0. 7 % 6 . 5 % 1 0 . 1 % 1 1 . 2 % 1 1 . 9 % Ba s e  Ca s e   Op e r a t i n g  Re v e n u e s  (2 ) $ 2 3 5 . 0 $ 2 3 9 . 0 $ 2 4 3 . 0 $ 2 4 7 . 0 $ 2 5 1 . 0 $ 1 , 2 1 5 . 0 Se r v i c e  Pl a n  El e m e n t s Ro u t e  R e a l i g n m e n t $ 0 . 0 $ 4 . 3 $ 5 . 2 $ 5 . 5 $ 5 . 5 $ 2 0 . 6 Ex t e n d  Ho u r s  of  Se r v i c e  Du r i n g  th e  Sc h o o l   Ye a r $ 0 . 0 $ 0 . 2 $ 0 . 3 $ 0 . 3 $ 0 . 3 $ 1 . 1 Pr o v i d e  Ev e n i n g   Se r v i c e  in  th e  Su m m e r $ 0 . 0 $ 0 . 3 $ 1 . 3 $ 1 . 3 $ 1 . 3 $ 4 . 2 Di s c o u n t  Re g i o n a l  Da y  Pa s s  Fa r e ‐$3 . 8 ‐$3 . 9 ‐$3 . 9 ‐$3 . 9 ‐$3 . 9 ‐$1 9 . 4 Ne t   Ch a n g e  in   Fa r e  Re v e n u e s ‐$3 . 8 $ 1 . 0 $ 2 . 8 $ 3 . 2 $ 3 . 3 $ 6 . 5 To t a l  An n u a l  Fa r e  Re v e n u e s $2 3 1 . 2 $ 2 4 0 . 0 $ 2 4 5 . 8 $ 2 5 0 . 2 $ 2 5 4 . 3 $ 1 , 2 2 1 . 5    Pe r c e n t  Ch a n g e ‐1. 6 % 0 . 4 % 1 . 2 % 1 . 3 % 1 . 3 % 0 . 5 % So u r c e :  LS C  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Co n s u l t a n t s ,  In c .   No t e  2:  In c l u d e s  ca s h  fa r e s ,  bu s  pa s s  re v e n u e s ,  do w n t o w n  a c c e s s  pa s s ,  an d  Pr a d o  to k e n s TA B L E  42 :  SL O  Tr a n s i t  Sh o r t  Ra n g e  Tr a n s i t  Im p r o v e m e n t s  Ri d e r s h i p  an d  Fa r e  Re v e n u e   No t e  1:  Ba s e  ca s e  ri d e r s h i p  on  fi x e d  ro u t e s  in c r e a s e d  by  0. 6 %  pe r  ye a r ,  pe r  th e  mi d ‐ra n g e  pr o j e c t i o n s  p r e s e n t e d  in  Fi n a l  Re p o r t  ‐   Sa n  Lu i s  Ob i s p o   Co u n t y  20 4 0  Po p u l a t i o n ,  Ho u s i n g  & Em p l o y m e n t  Fo r e c a s t  (S L O C O G ,  20 1 1 ) ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 174 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 158 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     Year 1. In addition, programmatic capital improvements (communications, maintenance  equipment, etc.) are included, with additional funds in Year 2 for IT improvements. Based  on the capital plan, presented above, the capital costs total $9,689,000 over the five‐year  period.         The results of Tables 41 through 43 were used to develop the Financial Plan, as presented for  each of the five years of the Short Range Transit Plan period in Table 44. In addition to  passenger fare revenues, this Financial Plan incorporates the following funding sources:     Farebox and pass sales revenues.     FTA Section 5307 (Urban Program) funds are used for operations and capital purchases.  These funds are assumed to grow at 5 percent per year, per the SLOCOG 2014 Regional  Transportation Plan.     The Cal Poly agreement revenues are assumed to continue, growing at the rate of inflation,  as is the Trolley service surcharge.     A modest amount of income from interest and sale of surplus property is included.     Transportation Development Act Local Transportation Funds are assumed to increase at 4  percent per year while State Transit Assistance funds are assumed to grow at 2 percent per  year, per the SLOCOG 2014 Regional Transportation Plan.     State Transit Assistance funds are used as capital funding. Given current uncertainty  regarding this source, no change from current levels is assumed.            All Figures in Thousands 5‐Year  Plan  Plan Element FY16‐17 FY17‐18 FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY 20‐21 Total Capital  Plan Elements Low Floor Buses $1,000.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,144.0 $0.0 $3,144.0 Double Decker Buses $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,882.0 $0.0 $1,882.0 Trolley $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $450.0 $0.0 $450.0 Transit Operations/Maintenance Facility $220.0 $525.0 $2,975.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,720.0 Bus Stop Improvements $50.7 $51.7 $53.8 $57.6 $63.6 $277.3 Short Term Government Center Transit Hub  Improvements $40.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $40.0 Programmatic Capital Improvements $31.0 $45.0 $32.3 $33.2 $34.2 $175.7 Subtotal: Capital Plan Elements $1,341.7 $621.7 $3,061.0 $4,566.8 $97.8 $9,689.0 Programmatic capital improvements include bus stop improvements, maintenance equipment and computer/communications equipment Source: LSC  Transportation Consultants, Inc. TABLE 43: SLO Transit Short Range Transit Capital Plan Inflation assumptions identified  in the SLOCOG RTP were applied: two percent annual inflation through 2018/19, and three percent thereafter ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 175   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.  SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 159     FY 1 6 ‐17 F Y 1 7 ‐18 F Y 1 8 ‐19 F Y 1 9 ‐20 F Y  20 ‐21 OP E R A T I N G        Op e r a t i n g  Co s t s  (F r o m  Ta b l e  41 ) $3 , 1 6 3 . 9 $ 3 , 3 2 2 . 3 $ 3 , 5 1 4 . 8 $ 3 , 6 2 0 . 2 $ 3 , 7 2 8 . 8 Op e r a t i n g  Re v e n u e s Fa r e   R e v e n u e s  (F r o m  Ta b l e  42 ) $2 3 1 . 2 $ 2 4 0 . 0 $ 2 4 5 . 8 $ 2 5 0 . 2 $ 2 5 4 . 3 53 0 7  ‐   Op e r a t i n g $ 1 , 2 0 8 . 0 $ 1 , 2 6 8 . 0 $ 1 , 3 3 1 . 0 $ 1 , 3 9 8 . 0 $ 1 , 4 6 8 . 0 53 0 7  ‐   Pr e v e n t i v e  Ve h i c l e  Ma i n t $1 6 8 . 0 $ 1 7 6 . 0 $ 1 8 5 . 0 $ 1 9 4 . 0 $ 2 0 4 . 0 TD A  ‐   Lo c a l  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d $8 7 5 . 0 $ 9 1 0 . 0 $ 9 4 6 . 0 $ 9 8 4 . 0 $ 1 , 0 2 3 . 0 TD A  ‐   St a t e  Tr a n s i t  As s i s t a n c e  (S T A ) $3 4 . 0 $ 3 5 . 0 $ 3 6 . 0 $ 3 7 . 0 $ 3 8 . 0 TD A  ‐   ST A  Di s c r e t i o n a r y $1 4 6 . 0 $ 1 4 9 . 0 $ 1 5 2 . 0 $ 1 5 5 . 0 $ 1 5 8 . 0 Ca l P o l y  Ag r e e m e n t $4 5 2 . 0 $ 4 6 1 . 0 $ 4 7 0 . 0 $ 4 7 9 . 0 $ 4 9 3 . 0 SL O R T A  Re v e n u e  Sh a r i n g $2 2 . 0 $ 2 2 . 0 $ 2 2 . 0 $ 2 2 . 0 $ 2 2 . 0 Tr o l l e y  Su r c h a r g e $7 . 0 $ 7 . 0 $ 7 . 0 $ 7 . 0 $ 7 . 0 Sa l e  of  Su r p l u s  Pr o p $4 . 0 $ 4 . 0 $ 4 . 0 $ 4 . 0 $ 4 . 0 In v e s t m e n t   & Pr o p  Re v e n u e s $6 . 0 $ 6 . 0 $ 6 . 0 $ 6 . 0 $ 6 . 0 To t a l $3 , 1 5 3 . 2 $ 3 , 2 7 8 . 0 $ 3 , 4 0 4 . 8 $ 3 , 5 3 6 . 2 $ 3 , 6 7 7 . 3 Ad d i t i o n a l  Fu n d s  Re q u i r e d $1 0 . 7 $ 4 4 . 3 $ 1 0 9 . 9 $ 8 4 . 0 $ 5 1 . 6 CA P I T A L    Ca p i t a l  Co s t s  (F r o m  Ta b l e  43 ) $1 , 3 4 1 . 7 $ 6 2 1 . 7 $ 3 , 0 6 1 . 0 $ 4 , 5 6 6 . 8 $ 9 7 . 8 Ca p i t a l  R e v e n u e s 53 0 7  ‐   Ca p i t a l $ 7 3 7 . 0 $ 7 7 4 . 0 $ 8 1 3 . 0 $ 8 5 4 . 0 $ 8 9 7 . 0 Ad d i t i o n a l  Fu n d s  Re q u i r e d $ 6 0 4 . 7 ( $ 1 5 2 . 3 ) $ 2 , 2 4 8 . 0 $ 3 , 7 1 2 . 8 ( $ 7 9 9 . 2 ) FT A  ‐   Fe d e r a l  Tr a n s i t  Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n So u r c e :  LS C  Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Co n s u l t a n t s ,  In c . TA B L E  44 :  SL O  Tr a n s i t  Sh o r t  Ra n g e  Fi n a n c i a l  Pl a n Al l  Fi g u r e s  in  Th o u s a n d s ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 176 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 160 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan      Low Carbon Transit Operations Program funds are used for capital purposes, and are  assumed to grow with inflation.    These sources result in $3,153,200 in operating revenues in the first year of the program, rising  to $3,677,300 in the final year.  This yields a small shortfall in FY 2016/17 ($10,700). The service  enhancements are assumed to occur in the second year of the program, which yields a deficit of  $109,900. This declines over the remaining years as revenues increase at greater rates than  expenses, to a FY 2020‐21 figure of $51,600.    This additional funding need reflects the potential for a new local funding sources (such as the  region wide sales tax) to fund viable SLO Transit service enhancements (and to reduce the day  pass fare for elderly and persons with disabilities).     As also shown in Table 44, capital costs exceed revenues in some years but not others. Over the  five‐year period, capital costs exceed the identified 5307 Capital funds by $5.6 Million, largely  driven by the costs associated with improvements to the garage facility and to replace/enhance  the transit fleet. Funding options to address this capital shortfall include the Federal Transit  Administration Section 5339 Grants for Bus and Bus Facilities program, TDA funds, additional  5307 funding, and sales tax revenues.    IMPLEMENTATION PLAN    Fiscal Year 2016‐17     Implement the short‐term improvements to the SLO Transit passenger facilities at  Government Center in San Luis Obispo   Conduct engineering/permitting tasks for enhancements to the Transit Operations and  Maintenance Facility, and construct the interior remodel.   Purchase 2 low‐floor buses   Establish new bus stops for route reconfiguration, and improve other bus stops   Prepare final schedules for reconfigured routes   Consider Serving Laguna Middle School Near Bell Times   Eliminate 5‐day and 7‐day pass, and start offering a discounted Day Pass   Start marketing awareness campaign for route reconfiguration/service enhancements   Continue coordination efforts with RTA    Fiscal Year 2017‐18     Implement the revised route plan and expanded school‐year evening service after Labor  Day.    Implement summer evening service at the end of the 17/18 school year.   Start construction of Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility improvements   Continue bus stop improvements  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 177  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.   SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan  Page 161    Continue coordination efforts with RTA    Fiscal Year 2018‐19     Complete construction of Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility improvements   Continue bus stop improvements   Continue coordination efforts with RTA    Fiscal Year 2019‐20     Purchase 2 double‐decker buses, 4 low‐floor buses, and a Trolley vehicle.   Continue bus stop improvements   Continue coordination efforts with RTA    Fiscal Year 2020‐21     Continue bus stop improvements   Update Short Range Transit Plan    CONCLUSION    As a whole, this plan will:     Increase SLO Transit annual ridership by an estimated 8.7 percent.   Increase annual operating costs by approximately $237,000 (by FY 2010/21), or 6.8  percent.   Improve on‐time performance and address driver break requirements.   Substantially simplify the route structure, making it easier for passengers to understand  and use.   Provide service to new neighborhoods, and increase service frequency in areas that  most need it.   Initiate summer weekday evening service.   Expand weekday evening service during the school year   Improve the cost‐effectiveness of SLO Transit services   Improve bus stops, transit facilities as well as the bus fleet.   Enhance coordination with RTA services.     ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 178 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. / AECOM, Inc.    Page 162 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan     This page left intentionally blank.    ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 179 Appendix A SLO Transit Onboard Survey      ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 180   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 181 SL O T r a n s i t O n b o a r d S u r v e y Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 98 . 6 % 1 5 3 2 1. 4 % 2 2 15 5 4 19 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 5. 8 % 9 0 9. 5 % 1 4 8 4. 2 % 6 5 20 . 9 % 3 2 5 19 . 0 % 2 9 5 24 . 8 % 3 8 5 15 . 8 % 2 4 6 15 5 4 19 Ro u t e n u m b e r s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t w a s o n : s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n Su r v e y : E n g l i s h o r S p a n i s h An s w e r O p t i o n s En g l i s h Sp a n i s h a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n 6a 6b a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n An s w e r O p t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 Su r v e y : E n g l i s h o r S p a n i s h En g l i s h Sp a n i s h Fi g u r e X : R o u t e n u m b e r s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t w a s on : 1 2 3 4 5 6a 6b ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 182 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 1494 skipped question 79 Street Intersection/Place Response Count Response Percent City/Town Response Count Response Percent SLO 1452 97.2%Other Augusta 14 San Jose 1 0.1% Broad 27 Paso Robles 1 0.1% Cal Poly 374 25.0%Atascadero 8 0.5% Cal Poly Library 219 Santa Maria 2 0.1% Cal Poly PAC 59 Arroyo Grande 1 0.1% California 13 Los Osos 3 0.2% Casa 25 Morro Bay 4 0.3% Casa and Murray 18 Pismo Beach 2 0.1% Cuesta 39 Cambria 2 0.1% Cuesta and Highland 28 Templeton 1 0.1% Downtown Transit Center 77 Foothill 58 Left Blank 17 1.1% Grand 45 Grand and Abbott 16 Grand and Mill 13 Highland 14 Higuera 37 Higuera and Suburban 8 Johnson 33 LOVR 58 LOVR and Madonna 28 LOVR and Oceanaire 11 Madonna 27 Madonna and Oceanaire 10 Mill 53 Mill and Osos 6 Mill and Pepper 8 Mill and Santa Rosa 13 Orcutt 14 Patricia 26 Phillips 14 Phillips and Pepper 9 Prado 15 Ramona 64 Ramona and Palomar 34 Ramona and Tassajara 19 Santa Rosa 40 South 22 Tassajara 22 TABLE A: Location Riders Are Coming From Respondents coming from SLO answered question Respondents Coming from Cities other than SLO SLO Transit Onboard Survey ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 183       1369 204 Common Bus Stop Response Count Response Percent Cal Poly 123 Cal Poly PAC 38 Kennedy Library 185 Subtotal Cal Poly locations 346 25.3% Downtown Transit Center 117 8.5% Cuesta 10 Cuesta and Highland 12 Cuesta and Dartmouth 2 Cuesta and Foothill 1 Cuesta and Stanford 1 Subtotal Cuesta College locations 26 1.9% Ramona and Tassajara 23 Ramona and Palomar 19 LOVR and Madonna 17 Valencia 17 Casa and Murray 15 Laurel and Augusta 13 Madonna 12 Mill and Johnson 12 Mill and Santa Rosa 12 Foothill and Patricia 11 Orcutt and Laurel 11 Higuera and Suburban 10 Mill and Pepper 9 LOVR 8 LOVR and Oceanaire 8 Patricia and Highland 8 Phillips and Pepper 8 Mill and Grand 7 Murray and Casa 6 Santa Rosa and Leff 6 Foothill and La Entrada 5 Madonna and Oceanaire 5 Santa Rosa and Buchon 5 Grand and Abbot 4 Grand and Mill 4 South and Higuera 3 South and King 3 Southwood and Laurel 3 Southwood and Woodside 3 I got on the bus at: answered question skipped question SLO Transit Onboard Survey ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 184 SL O T r a n s i t O n b o a r d S u r v e y Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 71 . 2 % 9 4 5 28 . 8 % 3 8 2 13 2 7 24 6 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 91 . 5 % 1 4 0 8 3. 6 % 5 5 1. 2 % 1 8 1. 1 % 1 7 5. 1 % 7 8 2. 1 % 3 3 0. 4 % 6 15 3 8 35 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 7. 4 % 35 42 . 3 % 2 0 0 23 . 5 % 1 1 1 11 . 0 % 5 2 6. 1 % 2 9 2. 1 % 1 0 3. 8 % 1 8 Va r i e s 3 . 8 % 1 8 a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n 47 3 s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n 11 0 0 An s w e r O p t i o n s 6 o r m o r e b l o c k s Le s s t h a n 1 b l o c k 1 b l o c k 2 b l o c k s 3 b l o c k s 4 b l o c k s 5 b l o c k s SL O b u s RT A b u s Mo b i l i t y d e v i c e a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n If w a l k e d , # o f b l o c k s Ho w d i d y o u t r a v e l t o t h i s b u s ? An s w e r O p t i o n s Wa l k e d Bi c y c l e Dr o v e c a r Pa s s e n g e r i n c a r s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n Wi l l y o u b e t r a v e l i n g r o u n d t r i p o n S L O T r a n s i t t o d a y ? An s w e r O p t i o n s Ye s No a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n Wi l l y o u b e t r a v e l i n g r o u n d t r i p o n S L O T r a n s i t t o d a y ? Ye s No 0. 0 % 20 . 0 % 40 . 0 % 60 . 0 % 80 . 0 % 10 0 . 0 % Ho w d i d y o u t r a v e l t o t h i s b u s ? 7. 4 % 42 . 3 % 23 . 5 % 11 . 0 % 6. 1 % 2. 1 % 3. 8 % 3. 8 % If w a l k e d , # o f b l o c k s Le s s t h a n 1 b l o c k 1 b l o c k 2 b l o c k s 3 b l o c k s 4 b l o c k s 5 b l o c k s 6 o r m o r e b l o c k s Va r i e s 10 . 0 % 14 . 3 % 15 . 7 % 12 . 9 % 21 . 4 % 20 . 0 % 5. 7 % If S L O b u s , R o u t e # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ot h e r 6. 7 % 3. 3 % 3. 3 % 40 . 0 % 20 . 0 % 26 . 7 % If R T A b u s , R o u t e # 3 4 5 9 10 12 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 185 SL O T r a n s i t O n b o a r d S u r v e y Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e C o u n t 87 . 7 % 1 3 3 2 3. 5 % 5 3 1. 3 % 1 9 0. 7 % 1 0 6. 4 % 9 7 2. 9 % 4 4 0. 4 % 6 15 1 8 55 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e C o u n t 10 . 6 % 4 6 44 . 6 % 1 9 4 21 . 8 % 9 5 9. 0 % 3 9 4. 1 % 1 8 2. 3 % 1 0 4. 8 % 2 1 Va r i e s 2 . 8 % 1 2 a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n 43 5 s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n 11 3 8 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e C o u n t 6. 1 % 9 0 15 . 1 % 2 2 2 64 . 1 % 9 4 1 7. 8 % 1 1 5 3. 7 % 5 4 4. 8 % 7 0 5. 8 % 8 5 2. 5 % 3 6 14 6 9 10 4 3 b l o c k s 4 b l o c k s 5 b l o c k s 6 o r m o r e b l o c k s Bi c y c l e If w a l k e d , # o f b l o c k s An s w e r O p t i o n s Le s s t h a n 1 b l o c k 1 b l o c k 2 b l o c k s Mo b i l i t y d e v i c e Af t e r l e a v i n g t h i s b u s , h o w w i l l y o u c o m p l e t e y o u r t r i p ? Pa s s e n g e r i n c a r s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n Wa l k RT A b u s Dr o v e c a r a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n An s w e r O p t i o n s SL O b u s Wh a t i s t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s t r i p t o d a y ? An s w e r O p t i o n s Sh o p p i n g Wo r k Sc h o o l Mu l t i - P u r p o s e Ot h e r Re c r e a t i o n / S o c i a l Pe r s o n a l B u s i n e s s Me d i c a l / D e n t a l a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n 0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 10 0 % Af t e r l e a v i n g t h i s b u s , h o w w i l l y o u c o m p l e t e y o u r t r i p ? If w a l k e d , # o f b l o c k s Le s s t h a n 1 b l o c k 1 b l o c k 2 b l o c k s 3 b l o c k s 4 b l o c k s 5 b l o c k s 6 o r m o r e b l o c k s Va r i e s 3. 4 % 11 . 2 % 12 . 4 % 23 . 6 % 18 . 0 % 24 . 7 % 6. 7 % If S L O , R o u t e # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ot h e r 27 % 24 % 32 % 17 % If R T A , R o u t e # 9 10 12 Ot h e r 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % Wh a t i s t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s t r i p t o d a y ? ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 186 SL O T r a n s i t O n b o a r d S u r v e y Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 40 . 2 % 4 5 7 0. 9 % 1 0 22 . 7 % 2 5 8 27 . 4 % 3 1 1 1. 9 % 2 2 17 . 3 % 1 9 7 0. 4 % 4 6. 2 % 7 0 11 3 7 43 6 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 17 . 4 % 2 5 1 21 . 8 % 3 1 4 25 . 5 % 3 6 7 23 . 9 % 3 4 4 11 . 7 % 1 6 9 14 4 2 13 1 a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n 3 - 4 y e a r s s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n 5 o r m o r e y r Ot h e r Pa s s e n g e r i n c a r s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n An s w e r O p t i o n s Le s s t h a n 6 m o 6 m o - 1 y e a r 1 - 2 y e a r s If y o u h a v e b e e n r i d i n g S L O T r a n s i t l e s s t h a n a y e a r , h o w d i d y o u co m p l e t e t h e t r i p b e f o r e u s i n g S L O T r a n s i t ? Bi c y c l e Ho w l o n g h a v e y o u b e e n r i d i n g S L O T r a n s i t s e r v i c e s ? a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n Wa l k e d Sc h o o l b u s Mo b i l i t y d e v i c e An s w e r O p t i o n s RT A b u s Dr o v e c a r 0%5% 10 % 15 % 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % 45 % If y o u h a v e b e e n r i d i n g S L O T r a n s i t l e s s t h a n a y e a r , h o w d i d y o u co m p l e t e t h e t r i p b e f o r e u s i n g S L O T r a s i t ? 49 % 18 % 24 % 9% If w a l k e d , # o f b l o c k s 0- 4 b l o c k s 5- 9 b l o c k s 10 - 1 5 b l o c k s Mo r e t h a n 1 5 b l o c k s 15 % 8%8% 8% 15 % 23 % 23 % If R T A b u s , R o u t e # 1 2 4 5 9 10 12 0%5% 10 % 15 % 20 % 25 % 30 % Ho w l o n g h a v e y o u b e e n r i d i n g S L O T r a n s i t s e r v i c e s ? ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 187 SL O T r a n s i t O n b o a r d S u r v e y Ra t i n g Av e r a g e Re s p o n s e Co u n t 49 3 3 5 . 2 % 7 5 2 5 3 . 8 % 1 3 6 9 . 7 % 1 6 1 . 1 % 2 0 . 1 % 4 . 2 3 1 3 9 9 60 7 4 3 . 0 % 7 2 2 5 1 . 2 % 7 6 5 . 4 % 5 0 . 4 % 0 0 . 0 % 4 . 3 7 1 4 1 0 58 2 4 1 . 5 % 7 1 5 5 1 . 0 % 9 7 6 . 9 % 8 0 . 6 % 1 0 . 1 % 4 . 3 3 1 4 0 3 28 8 2 0 . 5 % 6 5 5 4 6 . 5 % 3 6 4 2 5 . 9 % 8 3 5 . 9 % 1 8 1 . 3 % 3 . 7 9 1 4 0 8 73 8 5 2 . 9 % 5 4 2 3 8 . 8 % 1 0 1 7 . 2 % 1 3 0 . 9 % 2 0 . 1 % 4 . 4 3 1 3 9 6 43 3 3 1 . 9 % 8 4 5 6 2 . 3 % 7 3 5 . 4 % 6 0 . 4 % 0 0 . 0 % 4 . 2 6 1 3 5 7 14 2 5 14 8 On - T i m e Se r v i c e I n f o r m a t i o n Ov e r a l l E x p e r i e n c e Co u r t e s y s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n An s w e r O p t i o n s Va l u e f o r F a r e Sa f e t y a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n Pl e a s e r a t e S L O T r a n s i t s e r v i c e f o r e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : Ex c e l l e n t ( 5 ) Go o d Fa i r Po o r Ve r y P o o r ( 1 ) 4. 2 3 4. 3 7 4. 3 3 3. 7 9 4. 4 3 4. 2 6 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % Se r v i c e I n f o r m a t i o n S a f e t y C o u r t e s y O n - T i m e V a l u e f o r F a r e O v e r a l l E x p e r i e n c e Pl e a s e r a t e S L O T r a n s i t s e r v i c e f o r e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : Ex c e l l e n t ( 5 ) Go o d Fa i r Po o r Ve r y P o o r ( 1 ) ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 188 SL O T r a n s i t O n b o a r d S u r v e y Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 32 . 9 % 4 0 9 1. 4 % 1 7 Ca l P o l y - - N o t D e f i n e d 47 . 9 % 5 9 5 1. 3 % 1 6 0. 2 % 3 Cu e s t a - - N o t D e f i n e d 2. 4 % 3 0 1. 2 % 1 5 0. 2 % 3 K- 1 2 - - N o t D e f i n e d 3. 1 % 3 8 9. 3 % 1 1 6 12 4 2 33 0 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 1. 6 % 2 3 16 . 2 % 2 3 0 31 . 5 % 4 4 6 47 . 4 % 6 7 1 3. 7 % 5 2 14 1 6 15 7 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 77 . 0 % 1 0 7 6 23 . 0 % 3 2 1 13 9 7 17 6 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 43 . 6 % 6 0 5 56 . 4 % 7 8 2 13 8 7 18 6 An s w e r O p t i o n s K- 1 2 S t u d e n t Ca l P o l y S t a f f / F a c u l t y N/ A Ar e y o u : Cu e s t a S t a f f / F a c u l t y s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n Ca l P o l y S t u d e n t K- 1 2 S t a f f / F a c u l t y Ho w m a n y d a y s o n a v e r a g e d o y o u u s e S L O T r a n s i t ? An s w e r O p t i o n s Th i s i s m y 1 s t t r i p Cu e s t a S t u d e n t a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n 1- 2 d a y s / w e e k 3- 4 d a y s / w e e k 5 o r m o r e d a y s / w e e k Oc c a s i o n a l l y a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n Do y o u h a v e a v a l i d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e ? An s w e r O p t i o n s Ye s No a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n Wa s a c a r a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s t r i p ? An s w e r O p t i o n s Ye s No a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n 0% 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 % 6 0 % Ca l P o l y S t u d e n t Ca l P o l y S t a f f / F a c u l t y Ca l P o l y - - N o t D e f i n e d Cu e s t a S t u d e n t Cu e s t a S t a f f / F a c u l t y Cu e s t a - - N o t D e f i n e d K- 1 2 S t u d e n t K- 1 2 S t a f f / F a c u l t y K- 1 2 - - N o t D e f i n e d N/ A Ar e y o u : 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % Th i s i s m y 1 s t t r i p 1 - 2 d a y s / w e e k 3 - 4 d a y s / w e e k 5 o r m o r e d a y s / we e k Oc c a s i o n a l l y Ho w m a n y d a y s o n a v e r a g e d o y o u u s e S L O T r a n s i t ? Do y o u h a v e a v a l i d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e ? Ye s No Wa s a c a r a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s t r i p ? Ye s No ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 189 SL O T r a n s i t O n b o a r d S u r v e y Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 73 . 1 % 1 0 0 2 75 . 2 % 10 3 0 6. 7 % 92 4. 7 % 64 13 7 0 20 3 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 10 . 7 % 14 3 16 . 8 % 22 5 16 . 3 % 21 8 26 . 8 % 35 9 0. 7 % 9 35 . 4 % 47 3 13 . 8 % 18 4 13 3 8 23 5 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 22 . 2 % 30 2 77 . 8 % 10 5 6 13 5 8 21 5 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 51 . 6 % 36 1 48 . 4 % 33 9 70 0 87 3 Ho w d o y o u a c c e s s t h e i n t e r n e t ? No a c c e s s Co m p u t e r s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n Ce l l P h o n e An s w e r O p t i o n s a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n Sm a r t p h o n e Wh a t i s y o u r p r i m a r y s o u r c e f o r t r a n s i t i n f o r m a t i o n ? An s w e r O p t i o n s Bu s d r i v e r Bu s s t o p Ag e n c y w e b s i t e Pr i n t e d g u i d e / s c h e d u l e Wh a t i s y o u r s e x ? Fa c e b o o k Re a l t i m e i n f o Go o g l e M a p s a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n Ho w m a n y v e h i c l e s d o e s y o u r h o u s e h o l d o w n ? An s w e r O p t i o n s Ma l e Fe m a l e a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n An s w e r O p t i o n s No n e 1 o r m o r e a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n 0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % Co m p ut e r Sm a r t p ho n e C e l l P h o n e N o a c c e s s Ho w d o y o u a c c e s s t h e i n t e r n e t ? 0%5% 10 % 15 % 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % Bu s d r i v e r B u s s t o p A g e n c y we b s i t e Pr i n t e d gu i d e / sc h e d u l e Fa c e b o o k R e a l t i m e in f o Go o g l e Ma p s Wh a t i s y o u r p r i m a r y s o u r c e f o r t r a n s i t i n f o r m a t i o n ? Ho w m a n y v e h i c l e s d o e s y o u r h o u s e h o l d o w n ? No n e 1 o r m o r e Wh a t i s y o u r s e x ? Ma l e Fe m a l e ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 190 SL O T r a n s i t O n b o a r d S u r v e y Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 4. 6 % 6 3 70 . 1 % 9 6 8 12 . 5 % 1 7 3 8. 4 % 1 1 6 3. 8 % 5 2 0. 7 % 9 13 8 1 19 2 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 35 . 5 % 4 3 0 15 . 2 % 1 8 4 7. 2 % 8 7 9. 2 % 1 1 1 11 . 8 % 1 4 3 21 . 2 % 2 5 7 12 1 2 36 1 Re s p o n s e Pe r c e n t Re s p o n s e Co u n t 97 . 5 % 6 6 6 2. 5 % 1 7 14 68 3 89 0 An s w e r O p t i o n s 65 - 7 9 18 - 2 4 a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n Wh a t i s y o u r a g e ? Un d e r 1 7 25 - 4 4 Wh a t i s y o u r a p p r o x i m a t e t o t a l f a m i l y i n c o m e i n a y e a r ? An s w e r O p t i o n s Un d e r $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 15 , 0 0 0 - 3 4 , 9 9 9 35 , 0 0 0 - 4 9 , 9 9 9 45 - 6 4 80 + s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n 50 , 0 0 0 - 7 4 , 9 9 9 75 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n Wh a t i s y o u r l a n g u a g e p r e f e r e n c e ? An s w e r O p t i o n s En g l i s h Sp a n i s h a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s k i p p e d q u e s t i o n Ot h e r 4. 6 % 70 . 1 % 12 . 5 % 8. 4 % 3. 8 % 0. 7 % Wh a t i s y o u r a g e ? Un d e r 1 7 18 - 2 4 25 - 4 4 45 - 6 4 65 - 7 9 80 + 35 . 5 % 15 . 2 % 7. 2 % 9. 2 % 11 . 8 % 21 . 2 % Wh a t i s y o u r a p p r o x i m a t e t o t a l f a m i l y i n c o m e i n a y e a r ? Un d e r $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 15 , 0 0 0 - 3 4 , 9 9 9 35 , 0 0 0 - 4 9 , 9 9 9 50 , 0 0 0 - 7 4 , 9 9 9 75 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 97 . 5 % 2. 5 % Wh a t i s y o u r l a n g u a g e p r e f e r e n c e ? En g l i s h Sp a n i s h ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 191 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 FREQUENCY / SCHEDULE 30 minute trips in evening for 6a. 6B waiting a few more minutes at the CP library so students can catch the bus after class. A 8:00am route 5 starting at LOVR and Madonna on weekends. Thanks. Add a bus to route 4. Be more on time! Add more buses between 9:00am to 10:00am. Also 5:30 to 7:00pm Add more buses-too full and infrequent.More students means we need more buses. Additional route or times info for Cal Poly. Routes would free up housing locations. Times into Poly would reduce the morning/evening routes. Adjust 6a route time a few minutes earlier. Adjust evening buses to be more like day time hours. Try to arrive at Cal Poly earlier than on the hour. Arrive before Cal Poly classes start at the top of the hour. Leave 5 minutes later so you can reach the bus after class. Avoid issues about maximum capacity. Better standing support for us short people. More buses during peak times (5pm-9pm) would be helpful. Better transfer connection, control homeless on 2 and 3, just plain nasty, use it like living room. Better weekend service. Bus 4 or 6B leaving the library a 5 or 6 minutes after they leave right after each other. Bus pick ups every 30 minutes. Bus to come to Cal Poly stop at :15 mark instead of :08 mark. Buses 5 minutes earlier to get to class on time. Buses every 15 minutes. I would use the bus all the time if it was more frequent. Change timing that bus arrives at Cal Poly. Come around more often. Come every half hour, obviously it would be a luxury. Come to Kennedy Library later than 2 minutes after the hour. If students get out of class on the hour, we always miss it. Consistent timing. Consistent year round service. Could be more efficient with timing. 6a and 4 don't always arrive on campus in time to get to class (from foothill). Decreasing headways and offering service later than 10pm, WIFI on all buses. The 5 is consistently late, especially in the morning heading towards campus. Fill up the #2 bus gap starting at 5:45. A great deal more night service everyday until 2:00 AM. For high use hours (morning weekdays) maybe more frequent stops to help people standing on the bus. Getting to school at the hour not 5 after. Greater service frequency, esp weekends and nights. Half hour routes or hourly trips on route 1. Have another bus that goes from campus to LOVR after 5pm. Have bus come a little earlier so I'm not late to school. Have the 5 run later than 7pm, more like 10pm. Have the bus (4,5,6a,6b) all stop at Library at the beginning of the hour. I don't always want to be late to class. I always miss the bus after school so I wish the 6B left 10 minutes after the hour instead of 2. I realize not everyone is using the bus for school but for those of us who are, the bus comes at awkward times. I think it is great, but everyone would be happy with more frequent late buses. I wish the 4 and 5 bus was more frequent! Add a 2nd double decker bus!! Students shouldn't be late to class because the bus is full. I wish the buses did not leave Cal Poly right at the top of the hour. It is too hard to get to the bus on time. The bus should leave 10 minutes after the hour. I would greatly appreciate later service times on weekends and more frequent service intervals. I would like route 1 to run 30 minutes. I'd like to see the early am always be 6:30am so I can go to 8:00am doctor appointment emergencies. Also 10:30pm, but am is preferred. If the 5 left the Kennedy Library 2 to 5 minutes later it would be easier to get home from class without waiting an extra 30 minutes. If the buses that come to campus ran more frequently on the weekend. My biggest reason for not using it is I tend to get stuck for an hour. Improve on-time performance. Improve app-accuracy when buses are out of service. Also it would be nice if more buses ran at 6:00pm. Improve the frequency, consolidate some stops. In the morning there could be more/later hour bus stops. 6-8pm should be every 1/2 hour, could go until midnight. Increase bus frequency to every half hour. Make sure the first stop times for 4A and 5A are on time. Increase service area and more often. Increase service for weekends and evenings. Increase service frequency. It would be great if the 6a bus could get to campus 5-10 minutes earlier to accommodate walking to class/getting to class a few minutes early. It would be nice if the buses did not have weird transition times at night, not being able to take a bus home at 7:30pm sucks. Larger buses and/or more buses running during when people are commuting to school. Later hours and buses to run more frequent on weekends. Later than 6pm for some routes, more frequent routes on weekends. Less expensive, greater frequency, better printed guide. Less waiting time between buses and more connections to Poly from bus 1-3. Make buses arrive at Kennedy Library by the door or 5 minutes earlier. Maybe more buses on the Cal Poly routes because they can be really full. A route 5 bus that arrives to Cal Poly at 6:35, a route 4 bus that arrives at Cal Poly at 6:56am, a route 6b bus that arrives to Cal Poly at 7:02am, a route 6a bus that arrives to Cal Poly at 7:06am. What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 192 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question More 6A. More bus routes at night. More than once an hour too. More bus routes, instead of adding double deckers we need more routes and buses, way too crowded. More bus routes/buses More buses More buses after 6pm. More buses and more often. More buses around 6:00pm. More buses at night and 4B to run later at night. More buses in the morning. Sometimes I have to wait for a 2nd bus to get to my 8:00am class. More buses on crowded routes/peak times. More buses on route. More buses on weekends. More buses running. More buses to Cal Poly More buses to/from Cal Poly More buses to/from Cal Poly More buses, cleaner. More buses, less wait time. More buses, more hours, two way bus. More buses, more often and later. More buses, they become too crowded. Also, work on APP reliability. More buses. They get packed. More capacity More frequencies. I use the phone app. More frequency on my route and being on time. More buses. More frequent at night. More frequent bus frequency. More frequent buses if possible. More frequent buses, timing further apart for #2 and #6B, they come so close together it is useless. More frequent buses. More frequent buses. It seems that they go to my stop every hour, if missed you have to wait another hour. More frequent evening buses. More frequent evening Cal Poly Buses. More frequent ride times. More frequent routes. More frequent service at more times of day. More on-time buses that don't go out of service at the transit center. More frequent trips. More frequent trips. More lines for this route: it is often full by the time it arrives and we have no other choice but to walk and be late for class. More night buses More regular times (every 15 minutes at peaks). More room for students trying to get to school at 8:00am. The bus gets so full that people get turned away. More room to fit students. More Route 1, more weekend. More routes or add another bus for each route. For example, the 4 route is always over crowded in the mornings on the :45 after bus. More routes, later hours. More service around Cal Poly area to reduce bus overload (congestion) during certain times slots. More service on the weekends for Transit and RTA. More time services. More time variability arriving and leaving Cal Poly campus. More times for the bus to go around. Not just every 30 minutes. More trips/hour More. Move route 5 up by 10 minutes. Need extra back up buses 24/7-need to map out bus service (stops). More night time service 24/7. Improve transportation stops-etc. Add more lights to bus stops. Not enough time to get to the bus stop on the hour when students get out of class. Offer more buses, 30 min wait can be frustrating. Operate at more times. Optimize morning routes to Cal Poly (especially 5 and 6a). Please keep SLO transit, very needed. More rides frequently would be nice. Provide buses every 15 minutes Routes that better align with classes at Poly Run more frequently after six from Kennedy Library. Run more often. Run more often. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 193 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question Run routes 6A and 6B twice every hour, as opposed to stopping and only running every hour once it is 6pm. Saturday and Sunday Route 3 should have 5:45 loop. Shouldn't drop off at Cal Poly so close to 10 past the hour. Slightly earlier 5 bus to reach Kennedy Library before 10 after consistently, maybe 5-10 minutes. Stagger bus every 15 minutes, not 2 buses every 30 minutes at the same time. Stagger times for buses so that nat all arrive at the same time. For example, 6A and 4 arrive at similar times at several stops. Stop at library 10 minutes after the hour. The 4 and 6A leaving people at bus stops. Also, the beeps and air release when the bus kneels are uncomfortable and unnecessarily loud. The bus should stop at the library at 10 minutes after the hour so students can get on after class. There needs to be more buses. I haven't been able to get on the bus because it was too full before. This route is packed at 6:00pm. It might need a bigger bus. Times Times that work for Cal Poly classes. Wifi on bus, more frequent runs and pick ups, too many gaps. You need to add more buses to the 5 and 4 routes. HOURS / DAYS OF SERVICE #1 should run on weekends 24/7 service for Cal Poly during dead/finals/midterms week. Excellent for our long nights of studying. 24/7 service on at least some important routes. 6A run later. 7 days a week, 365 days a year, 6AM to 10PM A late night bus that runs maybe less frequently for those late nights on campus where I end up walking home in the dark. A route between broad and S. Higher and longer bus time on weekends. Always having evening transit and not only when Cal Poly is in session. Always having the evening bus available, not only when Caly Poly is in session. Better lighting at bus stops, longer hours on weekends. Buses that travel both ways on a route (instead of one way). Better weekend service route 4-5. Better, late hours on Fridays from campus. Bus hours extended. Bus hours go later at night. Bus routes running several hours longer. Bus routes to begin earlier on the weekends. Bus runs later hours at night. Bus runs later on weekends. Buses later at night. Buses run later, especially the 5) Buses should run later on weekends. Buses should run longer. It'd be nice to be able to stay at the library till it closes with out having to walk several miles home. Buses that run late on weekends. Classes at Poly start at 7am, the 6a doesn't start until 7:10am, also later downtown buses. Cleaner buses, more run times (later times). Continue night service even when Cal Poly students are out of school. Decreasing headways and offering service later than 10pm, WIFI on all buses. The 5 is consistently late, especially in the morning heading towards campus. Do not eliminate late buses after 5PM in summer, forces many to walk from work to home 3 to 5 miles. Double decker bus reliability and later hours on weekends. Driver during later hours in the evening. Due to that, sometimes, I stay late on campus it would be nice to have a later bus on route 6A. Earlier / Later buses Earlier buses on the weekends, I work early and have to walk from Tank Farm to Downtown. Earlier times on Saturday. Earlier times so I can make classes on the hour. Earlier, later weekend hours on 4 and 5. Everything is good. Increase frequency on weekends. Excellent service! Have later hours for finals/dead week. 24/7 (Architecture students will benefit greatly). Expand routes, times and evening service. Expand weekend hours Extend bus times to run later and start earlier. Extend hours Extend hours for evenings and weekends. Extend hours on weekends. Extend the hours of operation on weekdays and weekends. Maintain the buses much cleaner Extend the hours of operation to include additional rides at 9pm, 10pm, and 11pm for Bus 2, 6A, 6B, and 5 on week days. Extended bus hours between Cal Poly and downtown. Extended bus hours. Extended hours during school break. Extended hours for certain routes. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 194 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question First bus start at 6:28am. For buses to run later. Go later in the evening. Happy on the whole. I would like more buses on weekend nights so we could come back from basketball games. Have 6a running on weekends. Have 6a start earlier for early classes. Have more service hours during the weekend. Have the 5 route run after 7pm. It can be difficult getting home if I'm at school late. Having buses run from campus later. Having the 5 run later. I want route 5 to be available after 7:00pm. I would benefit from later weekend bus hours as I work late and am unable to ride the bus home occasionally. I would greatly appreciate later service times on weekends and more frequent service intervals. I would prefer that the bus 5 made its on the hour stops earlier. Also, I would like either the 4 or the 6 to stop at the library later. I would suggest running later in the evenings on weekends. This is when students actually have time to be up and about. In the morning there could be more/later hour bus stops. 6-8pm should be every 1/2 hour, could go until midnight. Increase availability Night Bus (student safety) Increase hour time at Poly stop for 6b. Increase weekend and evening services please. Increase weekend bus hours later. Increased hours for weekends. increasing hours Keep 6a running later on weekends instead of just once an hour. Keep buses cleaner, extend bus hours on the weekends and weekdays. Larger buses for Foothill stops, double decker isn't enough, more buses should run later. Last longer into the night, at least until 10pm. Late buses on Sundays. Later hours. Late night bus extended hours to 12am. More buses for college students to get to class on time or use double decker buses. Late night hours. Later available hours. Later bus hours on the weekend. Later bus hours on weekends. Later bus routes Later bus service for route 5 bus. Later bus serving Cal Poly besides the two. Later bus times until 12:00am. Later buses for downtown workers who work weekend nights past 10pm. Later hours and buses to run more frequent on weekends. Later hours of operation. Later hours on the weekend. Later hours on weekends. Later hours would be nice. Later hours, safety for women at night. Later hours. Later hours. Later on Saturday evenings and very early Sunday mornings-please. Thank you. Later on weekends. Later routes. Later service Later service on Saturday evening and very early on Sunday. Thank you. Later service. Later stops in the evening. Later than 6pm for some routes, more frequent routes on weekends. Later weekend hours. Lengthen hours of service on weekdays and weekends. Also consider a bus stop at PCU. Long weekend hours for service. Longer hours Longer hours of operation on weekends. Longer hours on weekends, at least till 8:00pm. I want to be able to take the bus downtown for dinner. Longer hours on weekends. Longer service hours and on-time performance. Longer service hours for 4a and 6b on the weekend. Longer service hours. Longer weekend routes. More and longer nighttime service. More bus hours on the weekends. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 195 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question More bus routes at night. More than once an hour too. More bus routes on the weekend and at night. More bus stops, extended hours at night. More buses at night More buses at night and 4B to run later at night. More buses later More buses later at night and weekend More buses on the weekends, especially at night. More buses on the weekends. More buses on weekends. More buses on weekends. They don't run late enough. More buses scheduled during night time so people who have no cars can have the chance to find work on night shifts. Thank you. More buses, hours, and stops. More buses, more hours, two way bus. More buses, more often and later. More buses/routes running later at night. More county-wide routes on the weekend. More double decker buses in the morning and on time (to got to class). More early morning and evening weekend buses. More evening bus runs. More evening buses. More evening service, including weekends. My overall daily commute is on RTA route 9. More frequent/later service times on weekends. More hours by either starting earlier (preferred) or ending later. More hours on weekends More hours, especially on weekends. More hours. More hours/buses on the weekends. More late hours for students and weekends. More late night buses. More late night/weekend stops after 8. More night and weekend routes. More night time routes. More on Saturday. More on weekends, 4 and 6 further into town. More on weekends. More on weekends. Would go to the theater more if the Cal Poly buses run later. More routes at night. More routes available on weekends. Definitely extended hours on the weekend just like during the week would be appreciated. More routes on weekends. More routes, hours extended on weekends, up to date hours/app More routes, later hours. More weekend buses More weekend routes Need extra back up buses 24/7-need to map out bus service (stops). More night time service 24/7. Improve transportation stops-etc. Add more lights to bus stops. Need to have early bus runs on Sunday. Night buses all year round. Night buses downtown. Night buses past 10pm or 11pm. Night hours on weekends. Night service during summer. Night service on weekends. Night service when Cal Poly not in session. Night service. Offer earlier times, 6:00am. On time and later hours for downtown. On weekends to run later or to run more often. Please extend weekend hours. Providing service later. I had a job downtown late at night and didn't have a car so most nights I had to walk home 20-30 minutes alone. Regular hours on weekends, not like now Regular weekday hours on weekends, shortened schedules are a bummer. Route 1 on weekends. Route 4/5 bus starting at 6:00 for students who have 7am class at Cal Poly (coming from Madonna/Oceanaire). Run 6B on Sunday/more weekend buses for safe transportation. Run a little later on weekdays, the 5 route doesn't run when I am out of class at 8. Run buses later at night. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 196 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question Run later Run later during weekends, please! Run later in the evenings, lower fares, bigger buses on heavily traveled routes. Run later on weekdays. Run later on weekends. Run later so I can study later. Run longer on the weekends. Run routes later, Route 5 is no longer going to Cal Poly when I get out of class at 8. Run the 6a on Sundays for students. Run the service later throughout the day. Start at 6:00am. End at 10:00pm. Run until 10 instead of 9 Running later on Saturday and Sunday. Running night buses Running night buses Service LOVR stops later. Start a little earlier in the am. I have to walk to catch the 10 south. Start bus earlier (6am) please! Stay open later. Stick to the schedule and later buses, 6:55pm is still early. Stop at 10pm instead of 9pm. Stops earlier in the morning and more stops on the weekends. The 5 to run later I wish the route 5 would run an extra hour. Because students still have school, and a 7:40 route would be awesome for me. The bus run later, particularly from Cal Poly downtown. As a student I am often rushed to reach the last bus and then the bus doesn't complete the route and I have to walk farther (Route 4). This is really impressive bus system, however, I wish it ran in the later hours, especially on weekends. Timeliness and night service extended. Times and availability on weekends and nights. To have more buses on weekends for a longer duration. To run longer on the weekends. Transit option to the airport. Late evening buses. Weekend extended hours Weekend late night routes to/from Cal Poly and downtown. Weekend nights and holiday routes longer. Weekend service Weekend service frequency and extension of operation for the weekend. ON-TIME PERFORMANCE 1. Needs to be on time more. 2. It should not take 3 hours to get across SLO. Accurate arrival times. Add accuracy Always late, makes me late to class on a regular basis. More stops to downtown for bus 6 would be great. Arrival and departure timeliness. Arrive on time. We would like to be on campus by 8:00am so we can make it to 8:10am class. Arriving/Departing on time. Be more on time, I have been late to class on multiple occasions. Be more on time. Be more punctual. Sometimes the 6b and 5 are too close to each other/and at the same time. Be on time Be on time and update app with live tracking. Be on time because it affects how late/early we get on campus/classroom. Be on time more! Be on time! Be on time! Be on time! Be on TIME! Be on time! Be on time! Tom B (a driver) is the best! Be on time!! Be on time, it makes it hard for students when the bus is late. Be on time. Be on time. Be on time. Be on time. Being on time Being on time ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 197 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question Being on time and having enough room. Being on time. Being on time. Being on time/Courtesy. Better on time. Build in extra time so buses aren't always late. Buses being on time. Buses should be on time more. Change Route 6B so that it isn't constantly late. Come earlier so that all riders aren't late to class. 5 minute change. Consistency of time. Consistency with bus times and actual bus arrivals. Consistent times. Consistently be on time for morning buses. Crowded and slow on rainy days. Decreasing headways and offering service later than 10pm, WIFI on all buses. The 5 is consistently late, especially in the morning heading towards campus. Get the 5 to be on time Get the bus on time. Get there on time. Get to Cal Poly before classes start! Getting to campus on time. If the buses would come on time and they need to be more clean. Improve on-time performance. Improve on-time performance. Improve app-accuracy when buses are out of service. Also it would be nice if more buses ran at 6:00pm. It's a bummer when the bus runs late in the am and I end up being late to class. Bus could arrive minutes earlier for students. Just get to Cal Poly campus a few minutes earlier. Keep the buses on schedule. I've seen them 15 minutes later before. we have class to attend! Keeping a schedule, reliable app usage. Late buses on Sundays. Later hours. Leave earlier so I can be on time to school when we have to step for a lot of people. Let buses run later on Sundays since students usually go to school to study. Longer service hours and on-time performance. Make allowed times for bus arrival/departure. Correct/factor in traffic during school/work hours. Make being on time the number one priority. Make buses more punctual Making sure the bus is on time. Maybe more buses to get everywhere on time. More accurate arrival times. More accurate times. More consistent rate of buses for each route, difficult to ride when 2 come in 10 minute of each other and then not again for an hour. More consistent time. More double decker buses, timeliness. More frequency on my route and being on time. More buses. More on time buses to not be late for class. More on time trips More punctual More realistic times. More time scheduled for this route. Needs to be on time, it should not take 2 hours to get across SLO. Not to be early please. Not to leave the bus and stop early please. Often not on time. Often runs behind schedule during busy time=late to class. On schedule more often On time On time and later hours for downtown. On time arrival On time departing and arriving. On time more often in mornings, more room on buses in morning. On time more often, On time more. On time. On time. On-time, often route 5 is late. Please be on time. Please get to Cal Poly campus on time. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 198 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question Punctuality punctuality Punctuality Punctuality is most important and don't leave stops early. Pushing pick up times 2 minutes early. Often get to class a little late. Some buses run late and should notify us on the app if they're full. Sometimes I get to class late so change the timing of time at a stop. Sometimes I'm late to class in the afternoon if bus is running late. Sometimes it come really late and I'm late to class. Stick to the schedule and later buses, 6:55pm is still early. The 5 is almost always late getting to Cal Poly. It's morning stops at the transit center are frustrating to morning commuters. The improvement made in keeping buses on time, compared to when I used to ride 10+ years ago, is great. The Route 2 and 3 are hardly ever on time, maybe you could do 2 buses for each route. They don't get to my stop on time during the weekends. Time Timeliness Timeliness Timeliness Timeliness and night service extended. Timing can improve. To be more aware of the time schedule. Have a nice/welcoming attitude. Try to arrive at Cal Poly more timely. Try to be more on time and consistent. Try to be more on time and precise with the app. Try to be on time more often. Transit is often 10 minutes late for smaller stops. Trying to follow the schedule, I've missed buses because they left early and been late to school because bus was late. Uses phone app for info. 6a is late most mornings making me late to class. BUSES Air conditioning when it's hot. Air conditioning. Air freshener.. please Air on when bus is full of people. Always a rack for luggage. Always send the double decker bus on route 4 during busy morning times and update the live tracker when a bus is full. Back doors need to be open larger for us old folks! better seats Better seats. Better standing support for us short people. More buses during peak times (5pm-9pm) would be helpful. Better use of the double decker buses. Better ventilation, more airflow, the bus gets smelly. Bigger bus for 6a at 6:00pm. Bigger buses and luggage compartment. Bigger buses and more luggage room. Bigger buses early in the morning to Cal Poly, bigger buses in the evening from Cal Poly. Bigger buses for crowded loads. Bigger buses in the morning going to Cal Poly. Bigger buses on Thursday nights. Bigger buses. Bigger buses. Bigger buses. Bus smells sometimes and gets overfilled during peak commute times. Buses could be cleaner during day. Cleaner buses Cleanliness of the bus could improve. Cleanliness of the buses could improve Decreasing headways and offering service later than 10pm, WIFI on all buses. The 5 is consistently late, especially in the morning heading towards campus. Don't use the single floor bus in the morning (8:00am-9:00am) on weekdays. Double decker 6a during busy times. Double decker at 6:00pm. That trip is insanely crowded. Double Decker at 9:00am. Double decker bus reliability and later hours on weekends. Double decker for 6A at 6pm. Double deckers during rush hours. Extend the hours of operation on weekdays and weekends. Maintain the buses much cleaner Fix Wifi. Forward facing seats are better for back support. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 199 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question Free wifi Get bigger buses because sometimes they are packed and people cannot get on. Get bigger buses because sometimes they are packed and people can't get on Get rid of sideways facing seats and replace them with forward facing seats. Great job bus driver, a little cleaner (bus seats especially). Having wifi on more buses would be nice. Heating / AC Higher heat in winter and internet service. Hybrid engines, save the earth. I think the double decker bus in the morning is necessary. If the buses would come on time and they need to be more clean. Larger buses and/or more buses running during when people are commuting to school. Larger buses for Foothill stops, double decker isn't enough, more buses should run later. Make sure air is always circulating so it doesn't get humid and smelly. Make sure the double decker is running on route 4 in the morning. Make sure the two level bus for route 4a is in service. Make sure to use 4 double decker for buses arriving on the hour at CP. When the single level bus is used, people are almost always left behind. Make the seats more comfortable and play music. Monday through Friday Route 4 should always be double decker earlier than 8am. More bike racks. More bike racks. Less buses with those awkward space consuming side fancy seats. More double decker buses (more seats) on popular routes. More double decker buses for rush hours at Cal Poly Kennedy Library. More double decker buses in the morning and on time (to got to class). More double decker buses, timeliness. More double decker buses. More double decker buses. More double deckers for early 6a/4a. More routes and cleaner seats. More seating More seating if possible. More info when schedule changes or when other stops are affected like they are now because of construction. More seating on the number 4 bus for college students. More seats More seats on popular routes. More seats on some routes. More space More space. More ventilation, it gets smelly on the bus sometimes. Morning buses fill up very quickly , so maybe sending two would help accommodate more people and sometimes this causes the bus to arrive late to Cal Poly. Music Music and air conditioning. Music or tv's. Need improvement on lighting the bus at night. Noise levels. buzzing is too loud at times. Not always clean. More reliable, where there's construction, more info please Play music for students. Regulate the air conditioning better. Sometimes it gets too hot. Remove half the seats on 6a, for more space...Play radio on bus 91.3 KCPR UC Santa Cruz buses do both of the above Replace springs on bike racks so they are easier to raise/lower. RTA buses should have WIFI access to students who commute. Run later in the evenings, lower fares, bigger buses on heavily traveled routes. Run the double decker more often on weekdays. Seatbelts Some buses seem to be too small for the number of people on it. It would be good to be more away of busy hours to ensure enough space. Sometimes smells like wine. Otherwise, nothing at all. Staggered wheelchair placement. Temperature is usually very warm, it gets too hot and stuffy on the bus. Temperature regulation policies. Temperature. temperature/airflow erratic. The 4 and 6A leaving people at bus stops. Also, the beeps and air release when the bus kneels are uncomfortable and unnecessarily loud. The android app has several glitches. Keep double decker buses in the morning for route 4. The double decker was a great improvement. I think there may be better time in the day that require a double decker or require 2 buses to be sent. The electronic signs at bus stops that tell you when the bus is arriving. The wifi never works ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 200 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question To include an additional bike rack in the back of the bus as the RTA has done. Thank you. Too many people, not enough buses. Triple decker buses. Two crowded, need bigger buses. Update the mobil app. Get the bigger buses for 5 on mornings because it gets crowded. Use larger buses at the 6:00pm time as it is very crowded. Use larger capacity buses for Cal Poly routes in the rush hours. Winter= sick people and over crowding is an issue. Only improvement I can think of. Use more double deckers during busy times. Use the double decker bus for Route 5 in the AM, tons of kids and adults get turned away for there not being enough room on the bus. Using the double decker buses during busy hours, example, 6:00pm on a school day. When the double decker is out of service it is very difficult, otherwise I love SLO transit. WIFI Wifi Wifi Wifi Wifi WiFi availability on all buses. Wifi on bus, more frequent runs and pick ups, too many gaps. Wifi on bus. WiFi on buses Wifi on buses. BUS STOPS Add count-down clocks at all stops (i.e. bus will arrive in x minutes). Better lighting at bus stops, longer hours on weekends. Buses that travel both ways on a route (instead of one way). Bus shelter at Laurel and August. Covered benches from rain. Improve bus stops and ensure on street parking does not interfere with bus coming and going from stops. More lighting on mill at stops. More lights at bus stops. Need more lighting at stops. Put shelter at Augusta and Laurel. ROUTING / STOP LOCATIONS 1)Paired routes that go both directions2)More frequent buses, for example, every 20 minutes.3)Bus stop at PCV 1. Needs to be on time more. 2. It should not take 3 hours to get across SLO. A bus that goes more directly from downtown to University Square. A bus that waits at Kennedy and laves to go downtown at 10 after the hour. A connection over 101 between Irish Hills (Whole Foods) and Suburban Road (Trader Joe's) A more efficient route from the Laurel Johnson area to Cal Poly or Downtown Transit. A route between broad and S. Higher and longer bus time on weekends. A route going both ways on California. A route that goes up highland and onto Cal Poly campus rather than just the 6a. More punctual. A stop near the business building at Cal Poly. Abandoning the the double-decked bus and replacing it with two normal ones so that the buses may come more frequently. Add a stop by Cal Poly stadium/business building. Add a stop DN 6b and 5 and 4 closer to California and Foothill. I work at that side of campus and it's a long walk. Better access to Food 4 Less, Trader Joe's, DMV Better lighting at bus stops, longer hours on weekends. Buses that travel both ways on a route (instead of one way). Better RTA service to Cal Poly. Bring more routes. Bus route for Cal Poly students who need to go to animal/farm units on campus (north of main campus). Bus stop at PCV please Bus stop near PCV helps students to get to school. Bus stops in PVC. Bus that goes from Vons to Food 4 Less. Bus that goes from Burger King to Food 4 Less. Buses should come to stop too early. Stop on Route 2 closer to Oso High School Direct from Cal Poly to Transit Center. Disembark or enter in every block Duration of trips, lines that stop less frequently. Either having the 6b wait until 5 after to depart to give students a chance to make it over, or not have it wait and just make it arrive more often. Go to airport Have a bus stop right by the stadium/business building. Have a route that goes directly to Cal Poly from each route. Have bus that runs to the airport and Route 1 runs later and during the weekends. I live off Johnson and wish there was a route to campus that I could get without taking multiple buses. I wish the 6a route was shorter. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 201 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question I would like to see a bus direct to Los Osos (on LOVR) at least 6 times a day. I'm not the only one that feel that way. It would be nice if the 6a and 10b didn't switch off/combine after 6 during the week. Keep bus app up to date, route clockwise 6A. Lengthen hours of service on weekdays and weekends. Also consider a bus stop at PCU. Let the Poly kids walk more. Take out stops on South and Foothill. Also maybe expand bus route. Please have more buses from airport. Making the routes more direct. Drivers need to slow down at times. More bus routes. More bus stops. More notice when closing a stop. More buses, more hours, two way bus. More convenient stops More direct routes to Cal Poly from South/East end of town, area around French Hospital. More express to main areas of town. More on weekends, 4 and 6 further into town. More route options More route options. It takes me close to an hour to get to work every morning. It's about 2 miles away from my house. More routes More routes and cleaner seats. More routes towards downtown from SLO. More routes, hours extended on weekends, up to date hours/app More routes. More routes. More stops More stops More stops along Cal Poly perimeter. Sometimes we pass right by one of my class buildings but then I have to walk back that direction. More stops, more buses One route for all outlying stops #3,4, and 5. One big loop. Personally, it would be helpful if the bus came to CP closer to :45 due to starting work at 8:00am and ending at 4:30. From my location it only comes on the :30. Re-close phillips/pepper stop Route 6a does not have enough stops. Route 4 is too long a route, should be broken up. Routes with more stops. Service Santa Rosa Thanks for everything! More routes between Cal Poly-Johnson. That they get a route to go farther out on broad st. Do a loop to the airport. The 6b leaves at the :02, I always miss it by a minute. Transit option to the airport. Late evening buses. We need more stops because I still have to ride a bike or walk further to get to my destination. PASSENGERS Better transfer connection, control homeless on 2 and 3, just plain nasty, use it like living room. Cleaner buses, less unhygienic homeless riders, feces stains/smells. Control of smoking in bus stop bench areas. Have people with walker fold them so they are not a tripping hazard. Less baggage allowed per passenger Less carriage, baby strollers in gang way. No use of cell phones except for texting, horribly noisy. Not too many rude/homeless/drunk people on board that bug you. People should be required to clean up themselves before getting on the bus. Theres no windows, the buses often reek and are dirty. Clean better. People sitting on the bus for multiple loop rides and there is standing room only. It is not a pleasant when smelly people have been on the bus for hours. Smoking cigarettes on the bus. Some more governing on the #2/3 bus regarding noise level, language, and conduct. That no one talks on their cell phones at all. Way too noisy. OTHER A map inside the bus showing the route. A more clear schedule. A warning at bus stops in advance of road work so I can change my plans. About 90% of the SLO transit drivers are kind and courteous to their passengers. About 5-10% are rude and act like they despise passengers. Advance warning at bus stops when there will be a route change. Allow transfer from #3 to #3, hate paying twice to go to grocery shopping at vons. App improvement for schedules. Ask drivers not to pee on private property. Ask drivers not to drive off until passengers are seated. Be on time and update app with live tracking. Better advertisement of stops that will be closed using a method convenient for college students (like a FB page with updates). Better app, not glitchy. Better bus tracking on the app. Better communication with RTA ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 202 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question Better driving for students that have to stand and provide other buses if bus is full because some students rely on the bus system 100%. Better live updates on delays. Better Pace and CTA. Maybe cheaper price, but still good price for a day pass. Better warnings of when stops are closed. It only happened to me once when Foothill/Chorro was closed for construction, but it was very inconvenient. Brake/accelerate/turn less abruptly. Keep the seats clean (people leave trash behind). Bus drivers could at least smile, but I understand that not everyone has good days. Bus drivers need to be more aware when ones get on who need assistance, seating available up front. Bus schedule is confusing. Buses to Avila Beach. Extended hours of operation for CP bus and dt. Can't think of anything. Cheaper fare. Clearer schedule for those not used to riding on buses. Correlated more with the app. Courtesy Courtesy with drivers is good except for a few who don't even make eye contact. Courtesy/Friendly bus drivers. Discount for homeless. Dollar rides. Don't buy double decker buses before you know for sure you will get federal help. Don't push surveys on people. Don't think it needs to change. Driver Courtesy Drivers should be more courteous to passengers, especially those with disabilities. Fix the bus tracker app. Fix the phone app. Flat daily rates. For them to slow down a bit and not appearing to care less about riders. Free bus fare for students. Free snacks and or drinks. Friendlier bus drivers Friendlier staff, way to attract passengers. Get rid of rude driver. God help the people on bus 2. Have arrival times posted at bus stops. Have food. Have printed schedule at each bus stop, including Cal Poly library stop, and never cover it up with a rider alert announcement. Holiday clarity of cancelations Hygiene hand cleaners when paying fare. Maybe run 1/2 hour but schedules and drivers in SLO are the best. Sometimes the buses are over crowded. I get the Downtown access pass and it's the reason I started riding the bus, great program! I have no complaints about SLO transit. I think the app could be improved or 1 or 2 more buses running on a couple of the routes. I use the SLO transit app for information. I want to chat with bus drivers. If a bus stops running or working during its time, another bus should be waiting at the transit center to take passengers the same way. If not already implemented, alerts for delays. Improve app come at consistent times. Improve online presence. Improve on-time performance. Improve app-accuracy when buses are out of service. Also it would be nice if more buses ran at 6:00pm. Improve reliability and accuracy of mobile app. Improved driver courtesy (last Rt. 5 driver on weekdays is an awesome example of how drivers should interact with passengers). Improving the phone app that shows all active buses-it hasn't been working recently. Improving transit map comprehension. It always passes McCollum Keep asking, will help Keep bus app up to date, route clockwise 6A. Keep bus rides safe in terms of passengers. Keep Google maps up to date and notify patrons of service changes on holidays. Keep improving the smartphone app. It's helped me to track buses and figure out what route I should take. Keep the app and website updated. Keep the app updated Keep the bus app updated. Keep updating the app, it is really useful. Less expensive, greater frequency, better printed guide. Look into more buses with Cal Poly cutting back on hundreds of parking spots. Make 24 hour passes "actually" good for "24 hours" Make it easier to pay for bus fare, so that you can get change back, or a card that records the change amount for use next time. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 203 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question Make SLO transit bus app more accurate when near the end of the routes. Make sure the phone app can always read where the bus is. Make the app for the phone better. Making the stops at the designated stops, but it is never too late. Manners More accuracy on the mobil app. More accurate App More accurate App More accurate real time info. More accurate time on the phone app. More colors, dancing, and butterflies. More female drivers. More female employees. More information about when buses don't run, such as holidays, etc. More personable drivers. More reliable bus tracking app. More reliable SLO transit phone app. More updated real time info. Music Playing Never go out of service because it's way behind. That can really ruin someones day. Nicer drivers. New schedule. No improvement needed. none Not so "jerkish" drivers. Nothing! On time, nicer drivers, some are mean. Please have all drivers wait till everyone is seated before pulling away from the curb. Post bus times at least at major bus stops. Provide information on when buses stop running. Putting a phone number or way to call base on SLO Transit App to call to hold bus. Radio/music on bus Rental bikes. RTA #9 takes too long to go to SLO from Paso Robles. I have incontenance and would like a 45 minute trip. RTA into Lompoc if possible. Run water/no more on weekends. Since I use the Routes 2 and 3 a lot, it would be great if they could wait a few minutes at the transit center, so we don't miss our bus. SLO transit app could be improved. Snacks Snacks (LOL) Some drivers need customer service. Sometimes the app doesn't work Stop announcements? Switch to cleaner fuel source. I think the service is fine. Why are there more rating questions for Spanish Speaking people on reverse side? Some of the drivers are not very customer service savvy. Others are great. There is one bus driver that never smiles. The android app has several glitches. Keep double decker buses in the morning for route 4. The app sometimes shows "no current/active routes" when in fact there is. The driver refused a lady who needed help with her fare to give her a transfer and was rude to her. The drivers need to be a little more understand and not so rude. The real time app notifications can be late which makes me miss the bus. The SLO transit app. The tracker app is highly depended and needs lost data recovery algorithms and last known location contingencies. The transfers need to last longer. The unsubsidized cost is crazy, but the subsidized is ok. There is one grumpy driver (6B route), male. His is the only grumpy driver I have seen. To have driver for the 2 and 3 evening routes to be nicer. To not stop a route just because it is running late. To update their bus stop times so there wouldn't be any confusion. Transit App and later and earlier bus times. Try to tell driver to wait or accelerate lower when people are walking to their seats. Some might fall. Update for app. Update the app Update the app because a lot of the time the time it says the bus is away from a certain stop is often wrong. The app is great otherwise. Update the app. It doesn't load correctly at times. Update the mobil app. Get the bigger buses for 5 on mornings because it gets crowded. Update/fix the app. Uses app for information ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 204 SLO Transit Onboard Survey 829 744 What single most important improvement would you suggest for SLO Transit? answered question skipped question Uses app for iPhone. It's a great experience. Uses phone app. Wait at a stop longer. Wants DVDs on board! Seriously though, not enough buses on weekends. Warnings when buses will be going out of service at the transit center. When a passenger says "thank you" to a driver, it's very rude for the driver to say nothing. We are not hunks of meat! When a stop is closed, make some sort of announcement on bus tracker APP When someone is running for the bus and almost there, please be nice and stop (6b route driver is not nice). When the bus goes out of service downtown telling everyone when they get on that it is, some drivers do, but not all. ACCOLLADES Great free service for those whose kids are grown and work downtown. All is good. Awesome bus drivers. Doing great. Excellent service. Great service for seniors! Happy with how it is. Honestly, it is pretty good. I think all is good. I think the bus system in SLO is great. I wouldn't change anything, I'm really grateful for the system. Keep up good work driver and SLO personal. Love these guys. None -- all good None, works well for me. Nothing, everything is just fine. Nothing. Nothing. I've had really good experience with all my bus drivers. Thank you! Please keep SLO transit, very needed. More rides frequently would be nice. They already have excellent service. This is really impressive bus system, however, I wish it ran in the later hours, especially on weekends. Very happy. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 205 Appendix B Transfer Activity   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 206   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 207 A T T A C H M E N T 1 P C 2 - 2 0 8 A T T A C H M E N T 1 P C 2 - 2 0 9 Appendix C Public Input   The following is a list of meetings and public input opportunities conducted as part of this plan process.      • Feb 27, 2015 – SRTP Kick‐of Meeting with Transit Providers (SLO Transit & RTA)  • Mar, 2015 – Online Public Surveys (30‐days)  • Mar, 2015 – Driver/Contractor Interviews  • Mar 3‐5, 2015 – Onboard Rider Surveys   • July 14, 2015 – Stake‐Holder Interviews (elected officials, advisory body, etc.)  • July 15, 2015 – Joint MTC/RTAC Meeting  • Dec 4, 2015 – MTC Special Meeting  • Jan 13, 2016 – Joint MTC/RTAC Meeting  • Apr 5, 2016 –Public Meeting, Recommended Changes    • Apr thru May 2016 – 30 Day Public Comment Period  • May 11, 2016 – MTC Review of Public Comment   • June 15, 2016 – MTC Special Meeting  • July 13, 2016 – MTC Meeting   • July 13, 2016 – Planning Commission  • Aug 24, 2016 ‐ Planning Commission, Final Action  • Sept 20, 2016 – City Council, Adoption    Public comments (beyond those received as part of the public and onboard passenger surveys) are  presented in the following pages.  ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 210   ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 211 Public Comments Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) public comment period closed on May 6, 2016. The City of San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit) received a total of 12 public comments. Comments were submitted via Email, US mail, written comments, and verbal comments as follows:  10 – Email  3 – US Mail  1 – Handwritten  1 – Verbal 67% 20% 6% 7% SRTP Public Comments Email US Mail Handwritten Verbal ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 212 Public Comments are summarized as follows: Service Routes Service Location Public Comment Staff’s Comments All - Consider smaller buses. Bigger buses are not always better. - Consider more buses - Run all routes in both clockwise and counter clockwise direction. - Run buses more often (no more than 15 minutes between bus stops within city limits and no more than 30 minutes between rural stops). - Ridership currently is exceeding the capacity of 40’ vehicles. Smaller vehicles would create even bigger challenges - Considering the parking capacity constraints at the Bus Yard, this is also a challenge. Larger (40’) but fewer is a likelier feasible alternative - Bi-directional service is a goal of the plan - Higher frequency is a goal of the plan Route 1 Laurel & Orcutt roads - Retain existing hourly service to Laurel & Orcutt roads. - Plan is to reduce the hourly headway to 45 minutes perhaps even 30 Route 2 Higuera at Suburban bus stop - Retain existing service to Higuera/Suburban stop. - There is no plan to eliminate this stop Route 2 South Higuera/ Tank Farm/ Broad - Consider scheduling connection from RTA Route 10 to SLO Transit Route 2 in the morning and evening to better serve commuting professionals at businesses on South Higuera side of Tank Farm/Broad street vicinity. In the past the RTA Route 9 traveled down South Higuera and turned left on Tank Farm with a perfect schedule for working. - - Worth considering during the development of schedules. Will likely work with RTA to see the feasibility of this idea as one of the goals is to improve connectivity between the two systems. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 213 Proposed Route 2 and 4 South Higuera/ Los Osos Valley Road/ Madonna - Will returning to the Transit Center be necessary when traveling within South Higuera, LOVR, and Madonna vicinity? - Preserving the current Spoke- N-Hub transit model assumes the need to transfer to other routes. So yes, returning to the TC will be preserved. Route 2 and 3 - Consider providing 2-3 morning shuttles and 2-3 evening shuttles to express the homeless from one point to another. That would bring a huge shift to those two routes and better evaluation once the new homeless shelter is up and running - It's a thought-provoking concept, however the Federal Transit Administration who oversees public transit systems, amongst others, might take concern with segmenting populations from one another. While community services do have their broad challenges, they still must be open and available to all walks of life. Now beyond specialized trips, we are attempting to address crowding issues via the recommendations of our Short Range Transit Plan. You can learn more about the Short Range Transit Plan via visiting our website www.SLOTransit.org. Please let me know if you have any other questions, comments, suggestions, concerns or complaints. Thanks. Route 3 Tank Farm at Wavertree & Tank Farm at Brookpine bus stops - Retain Tank Farm at Wavertree bus stop. Understands existing concerns with bus stop location, but elimination of this stop would place the nearest stop about a mile from residence. - With proposed development in this area, would Tank Farm - Ridership counts at Wavertree were nominal and largely unproductive although not entirely (3 On’s & 6 Off’s in 10 day period). New developments (e.g. Righetti Ranch) are showing potential for higher demand and could provide at least some service level albeit a little more distanced from current location ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 214 at Wavertree and Tank Farm at Brookpine be brought back? - Reverse route so stops are on residential side of Tank Farm. Tank Farm at Wavertree & Tank Farm at Brookpine bus stops have no lighting, no crosswalk, and no signage, which does not provide the city with safe access to these stops. - Yes, see response above - A phase 2 change to the Route 1 would provide bi-directional service near this segment. This is however dependent on the development of Righetti Ranch and comes with the changes to service associated with its development Route 3 Tank Farm at Wavertree - Three bus stops on Tank Farm should be combined into a single bus stop, probably located at Wavertree as that stop has the best sight distance to crosss the street - When Righetti Ranch builds out, adding another stop at Bullock Lane would make sense - A lot of technical analysis goes into developing and refining these plans. As you can imagine, data upon data is what drives these plans and in shaping Transit systems to become more efficient. However, we recognize, as an industry, that the goal of public transit system should not entirely be to only maximize service. We often grapple with questions like: do underperforming stops become discontinued to save on cost so that savings can be reinvested in more productive segments and especially in segments that see overcrowding, or do we continue to invest the money even if there is even just one rider? That is where your public comment comes in. We need to hear from the community. Thank you once again. Route 3 Tank Farm between Broad and Orcutt - Reverse route so stops are on residential side of Tank Farm or remove these stops. - A phase 2 change to the Route 1 would provide bi-directional service near this segment. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 215 This is however dependent on the development of Rhegetti Ranch and comes with the changes to service associated with its development Routes 4, 5, 6B Phillips/ Pepper/ Johnson - Do bus stops on Phillips leave adequate room for buses to stop and pick up passengers while sufficiently staying out of the roadway? - Consider existing stop on South side of Phillips that requires bus to nose between a parking spot and a driveway, rather than pull to the curb parallel to the street. - Consider that both stops on Phillips are situated between two corners – one completely uncontrolled (Pepper) and one uncontrolled coming from Phillips and with limited visibility (Johnson). As buses go through each corner, there is often not enough room for passenger cars as the buses go around the corner. There is simply not enough room for the bus and for the inevitable driver that attempts to cut the corners between Phillips, Johnson, and Pepper, two- way residential streets with parking on both sides. - Consider existing stops on Mill St. These stops are on a wider street with a greater view of oncoming traffic and with more space for riders to wait for the bus. Residents of - No known traffic incidents of conflicts (PD or internal) however it can be derived from current measurements of vehicles and roadway. Anecdotal observations also confirm the concern. - This requires more analysis and is outside the scope of the SRTP - No known incidents of conflicts however it can be derived from current measurements of vehicles and roadway. Anecdotal observations also confirm the concern. - Plan is recommending shifting most routes off of Pepper/Mill area to other roadways (e.g. Monterey). APC data will help with final determinations. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 216 Phillips, Johnson, and Pepper are within the ¼ mile benchmark of these established stops. - Consider bus impact on Phillips/Johnson intersection due to bus traffic, which has required regular repairs by the City. Repair costs should be factored into the efficiency calculation of bus route. - Consider multitude of existing bus stops in close proximity. Removing bus stops on Phillips would not have impact on bus ridership and fees collected. Keeping buses on Mill St. will still serve Phillips/Johnson/Pepper neighborhood. - Omit Johnson/Phillips/Pepper detour. However, if existing detour is necessary, moving the bus stops to either Johnson or Pepper would provide a safer alternative. Johnson has cut-out area, where the road is widened and there is greater line of sight for passing cars. The East side of Pepper along the railroad tracks provides a long straight area where the bus could stop completely parallel to the street while providing enough room for the bus to achieve proper position coming into the turn onto Phillips. - See response above - See response above - See response above ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 217 - Buses servicing Phillips/Pepper/Johnson are empty certain times of the day, wasting both time and money. Buses should go through 1300 block of Mill. - Buses traveling on 4 block detour usually drive well over the dividing line for the traffic lanes. The Phillips/Pepper intersection is very narrow. Consider safety and visibility when buses turn from Pepper to Mill. The bus hangs out into the traffic lane on the railroad bridge because the red zone does not allow buses to pull forward enough to be in the clear. When cars try to go around these buses are often met with cars coming over the hill heading into town. Entire bridge curbing should be painted red. - Consider road damage from the weight of buses at the intersection of Peach/Johnson and the 700 block of Pepper. - Consider 800 block of Pepper that has no sidewalk – many riders park in this area and ride the bus. Lack of sidewalk poses danger and risk to these pedestrians/riders. Consider increasing all day parking in the 1200 and 1300 blocks of Peach, 700 block of Johnson, Phillips, and Pepper. - See response above - See response above - See response above - See response above ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 218 None specified Madonna/ LOVR/ Laguna Lake area - Consider express or direct service from Madonna/LOVR to Johnson (2180 Johnson) in the mornings (between 7:30 and 8:30 AM) and afternoons (between 5:30 and 6:30 PM). - The merit of this request requires further evaluation. Improvements to the Route 2 (crossing LOVR bridge) might address this request. None specified Southwood - Consider service to the YMCA on Southwood. - No safe turnaround to come out of Southwood. A full parking lot presents risks None specified Airport - Add bus stop to service airport - The merit of this request requires further evaluation ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 219 Public Comments Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) April 2, 2016 – Bus Stop at Airport -----Original Message----- From: Helene Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 7:57 AM To: SLO, Transit Subject: Bus Route I would like to request that a bus stop at the airport be added. ----------------Helene Finger April 4, 2016 – Route 1 and Route 2 ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 220 - 2 - April 5, 2016 – Proposed Route 2 and Route 4 Living in Chumash Village on South Higuera – the proposed #2 and #4 Alternatives I could go south on S. Higuera to Los Osos Valley Road and over to Madonna to shop. Then to board to go back to S. Higuera & Madonna Rd. At that point could I transfer to South? or would I have to return to the traffic center in order to go back to South Higuera? April 6, 2016 – Phillips/Pepper/Johsnon From: John Logan Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 10:50 AM To: Anguiano, Gamaliel Subject: SRTP Input G - Thank you for your presentation last night. I enjoyed meeting you and hearing about the future of our bus system. Attached is a letter regarding my concerns about the bus service on Phillips Lane. I have placed a hard copy in the mail for your records. Please contact me with any discussion, questions, or concerns. As I said in the letter, I would be happy to meet with you anytime. Thank you, ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 221 - 3 - Logan Hunt ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 222 - 4 - ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 223 - 5 - April 8, 2016 – Tank Farm at Wavertree & Tank Farm at Brookpine bus stops From: Tania Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 3:25 PM To: Lawson, Dee; Anguiano, Gamaliel Subject: SLO Transit Route 3 Gamaliel, Hello! I wanted to voice some feedback as a rider of SLO Transit and a SLO City resident. Although I know and appreciate the concerns with the stop at Tank Farm and Wavertree Street, I am disappointed to see it is being proposed as a stop that would no longer be served. I live on Wavertree Street and enjoy the proximity of the bus stop (it was a factor in our home search believe it or not). With it eliminated, it makes the distance to the nearest bus stop just shy of a mile which is a haul compared to the less than 500 feet that we now have. It adds another barrier to traveling on transit, especially when I am usually with three children. One question, with the proposed development in the area, would you propose to bring those stops (Wavertree and Brookpine) back? Many thanks! April 9, 2016 – System Wide -----Original Message----- From: judy Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 6:59 AM To: SLO, Transit Subject: Slo Transit Hi, I read through the three hundred some odd page report on the future expansion of SLO Transit. Here is my comment: simple and sweet! SMALLER busses. MORE busses. Run all routes in both clockwise and counter clockwise direction Run buses MORE often. ( no more than 15 minutes between bus stops within city limits, and no more than 30 minutes between rural stops.) SLO does not need such HUGE buses. Bigger is not alway better! Thanks, Judy Gallaher ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 224 - 6 - April 10, 2016 – Route 3 From: Mary Lou Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 9:05 AM To: SLO, Transit Subject: Short Range Transit Plan Suggestion Route 3 Dear Gamaliel Anguinao, Please give top priority to Route 3, Tank Farm Road between Broad and Orcutt Road. Reverse the route so that stops are on res idential side of Tank Farm or remove the stops. As a resident on Huckleberry Lane, I have been amazed at the danger presented to citizens at two city bus stops across Tank Farm Road from Brookpine and Wavertree. How did this pass ADA requirements?! No lighting, no crosswalk, no signage is offered. As you are aware, there is a lawsuit resulting from these unsafe conditions which resulted in serious injuries to a buss passenger crossing Tank Farm trying to reach the residential area. One of the goals for mass transit within the city is to offer safe access. There i s nothing safe about these two stops especially for those with disabilities. Unfortunately, one citizen has permanent disabilities as a resu lt of faulty planning regarding these two bus stops. Sincerely, Mary Lo April 10, 2016 – System Wide From: Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 7:03 PM To: E-mail Council Website Subject: SLO Bus Ridership Comments., Transit Report Dated, Dec 8, 2015 Dear Mayor and Council Members. I was looking at the Joint Short Range Transit Plans for RTA and SLO Transit, Dec. 8th, 2015. I am not sure what the actual goal here is but from looking at the report it appears to be incomplete. Mostly what I see missing is what happens as a result of the changes. Example. If Bus service is reduced what happens to the displaced riders and how do they get to their destination. Especially near Cal Poly. Students or Staff will either walk, ride a bike or get in a car to get to school, which may increase traffic on existing roads. The report does not discuss this from what I can tell they only discuss cost differences and what happens to existing riders. Since I live in the Arbors, my only real comment is that the three bus stops be combined into a single bus stop, probably located at Wavertree as that stop has the best sight distance to cross the street. When the Righetti Ranch builds out. Adding another stop at Bullock Lane would make sense. Thanks for listening. Sincerely, Gary Felsman 1266 Sumac Court ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 225 - 7 - San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 April 12, 2016 – Route 2 and Route 3 From: Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:59 AM To: E-mail Council Website Subject: Giving the homeless a shuttle Hi there, I know bus route 2 & 3 gets crowed as the homeless move from night Shelter to day shelter. Please consider providing 2-3 morning shuttles and 2-3 evening shuttles to express them from one point to the other. That would bring a huge shift to those two route and a better evaluation once the new shelter is up and running. Thanks for reading this! April 12, 2016 – System Wide From: Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 5:02 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Re: bus routes and stops To the SLO City Council: Please keep all the bus routes and stops that we have currently and please add more. And of course safety improvements would also be wonderful. Our family of 5 is trying to increase our use of bus service, biking, and walking. Our future in general depends on improving public transportation and alternative modes of travel. Part of the reason we chose to move to SLO in 2006 was the ability to have a local carless life here. We definitely appreciate the traffic calming and green lanes for bikes. Public transportation is also a big part of moving away from fossil fuels. We need to leave a decent life for our children and their children and beyond. Thank you, Sinsheimer-Johnson Neighborhood ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 226 - 8 - April 14, 2016 – Phillips/Pepper/Johnson ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 227 - 9 - ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 228 - 10 - April 29, 2016 – South Higuera, Tank Farm, Broad From: Alexandra Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 11:16 AM To: SLO, Transit Cc: Peter Williamson Subject: Convenient Transit to The Spice Hunter on Suburban Road in San Luis Obispo. To Whom it May Concern: I currently commute on the RTA Route 9 from Atascadero to Suburban Road in San Luis Obispo. Most days I get on the first express bus at 5:48 a.m. with my bike. I get off at The Apple Farm at the top of Monterey and ride about five miles down to Suburban, arriving at 6:25 to start my workday. By doing this I beat the Route 10 connection by about thirty minutes. In the afternoon I would need to cut my eight hour day short or extend it beyond my allotted work hours to use the Route 10 connection or the SLOT #2 if I did not use my bike. Needless to say, when I can’t ride my bike for some reason I must drive instead of using a more convenient bus system. A few years ago the Route 9 bus came down South Higuera and turned left on Tank Farm Road with a perfect schedule for working. Since then, many businesses have opened up on this South Higuera side and in the Tank Farm/Broad Street vicinity to reinstate this route (MIND BODY!!!) with the potential for HUGE rider growth if the schedules were updated to something more convenient for the professional employee. Please consider doing this. Thank you. Sincerely, April 29, 2016 – Madonna/LOVR, Laguna Lake area From: Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 12:10 PM To: SLO, Transit Subject: Public Comment Transportation Plan I ride a bike and have been attempting to go car free for years, but gaps in SLO Transit make it near impossible. Our work location at 2180 Johnson is currently undeserved by SLO Transit. I would consider riding SLO Transit if there was express or direct service from Madonna/LOVR that arrived near my workplace on [Johnson] between 7:30am and 8:30 a.m. and departed between 5:30 and 6:30 p.m. In addition, a second transportation hub, outside of the downtown corridor (eg Laguna Lake Area) would make connecting with RTA much easier for everyone. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 229 - 11 - May 5, 2016 - Southwood Meeting with Executive Director of the YMCA (Monica Grant), City Director of Public Works (Daryl Grigsby), and City Facilities Maintenance Supervisor (Andrew Collins): Ms. Grant requested bus route that comes down Southwood to YMCA. Mr. Grigsby mentioned Short Range Transit Plan and route changes. Mr. Collins acknowledged that trip down Southwood might be difficult due to turnaround – parking lot damage, etc. The closest existing stop is on Laurel. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2 - 230 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM USE-OTHER-3400-2016 July 13, 2016 1. Project Title: 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan, For SLO Transit 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Dept. 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager 805-781-7121 4. Project Location: Citywide 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Dept. 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project Representative Name and Address: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager 805-781-7121 6. General Plan Designation: N/A ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 231 2 7. Zoning: N/A 8. Description of the Project: This document presents a five-year (2016-2021) Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) developed for the City of San Luis Obispo’s public transit program, SLO Transit. An SRTP is intended to provide a detailed business plan to guide the transit organization over the coming five years. It includes a review of demographics and its transit needs, a series of surveys and ridership counts conducted for all SLO Transit services, a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing services, a review of similar systems, analysis of a wide range of options, and the results of public input processes. The resulting SRTP provides operational, capital and institutional plans, including an implementation plan. This SRTP plan has been prepared jointly with the development of a parallel SRTP for the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) program, in order to identify means to best coordinate the two services. The proposed update to the SRTP will not result in any new significant environmental impacts consistent with the analysis contained in the environmental document prepared for the SRTP in 2003 (ER 101-03; Attached). All potentially significant effects of the SRTP update were analyzed adequately as having a Negative Declaration. 9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses: City limits of San Luis Obispo and CalPoly University 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Adoption of the SRTP 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): None ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 232 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES X The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 233 4 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Tyler Corey, Principal Planner For: Michael Codron Print Name Community Development Director ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 234 5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 235 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-2193-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,5, 24, 31 --X-- b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? 5, 11, 31 --X-- c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,11, 31 --X-- d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 10,11, 17, 31 --X-- Evaluation The applicant proposes consolidating, migrating, adding and removing bus routes to align with ridership demands along existing and identified appropriate service corridors. Conclusion: No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1, 19, 31 --X-- b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 12, 31 --X-- c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 18 --X-- Evaluation No agricultural resources associated with this project. Conclusion: No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 9, 21, 13, 31 --X-- b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 9, 20, 21, 13, 31 --X-- c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 9, 20, 21, 13, 31 --X-- d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 9, 21, 13, 31 --X-- e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 9, 21, 13, 31 --X-- Evaluation ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 236 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-2193-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7 Public Transportation is generally viewed as an air quality impact mitigation tool, typically offsetting immersion from expanded service with increased ridership. The SRTP continues to recommend the use of CARB approved Clean Diesel vehicles and the pursuit of alternative (i.e. electric, hybrid, etc.) powertrains for its fixed-route bus fleet. Conclusion: No Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 5,17, 18, 26, 31 --X-- b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 5,17, 18, 26, 31 --X-- c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 5,17, 18, 26, 31 --X-- d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5,17, 18, 26, 31 --X-- e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 5,17, 18, 26, 31 --X-- f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5,17, 18, 26, 31 --X-- Evaluation No biological resources are associated with this project . Conclusion: No Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 5, 23, 24,26, 31 --X-- b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) 23, 24, 26, 31 --X-- c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 5, 26, 31 --X-- d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 5, 24, 31 --X-- Evaluation The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing services with minor additional service expansion along appropriate corridors within city limits. ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 237 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-2193-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8 Conclusion: No Impact 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 4,10, 14, 29, 31 --X-- I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 4,10, 14, 29, 31 --X-- II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 4,10, 14,29, 31 --X-- III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4,10, 14,27, 29, 31 --X-- IV. Landslides? 4,10, 14, 29, 31 --X-- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4,10, 14, 29, 31 --X-- c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4,10, 14, 29, 31 --X-- d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 [Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010], creating substantial risks to life or property? 4,10, 14,29, 31 --X-- e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 4,10, 14, 29, 31 --X-- Evaluation The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing services with minor additional service expansion along appropriate corridors within city limits. Conclusion: No Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1,13, 20,21, 31 --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 1,13, 20,21, 31 --X-- Evaluation Public Transportation is generally viewed as an air quality impact mitigation tool. The SRTP continues to recommend use of the CARB approved Clean Diesel vehicles and the pursuit of alternative (i.e. electric, hybrid, etc.) powertrains for its fixe d- route bus fleet. ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 238 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-2193-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9 Conclusion: No Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 4, 31 --X-- b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 4, 31 --X-- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 12 --X-- d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 30, 31 --X-- e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1, 4 --X-- f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1, 4 --X-- g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4, 17 --X-- h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 4, 17, 31 --X-- Evaluation No use of or introduction of hazardous materials are associated with the project. Conclusion: No Impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 5, 15,16, 27, 31 --X-- b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre -existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 5, 15,16, 27, 31 --X-- c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream 5, 15,16, 27, 31 --X-- ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 239 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-2193-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10 or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? 5, 15,16, 27, 31 --X-- e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 5, 15,16, 27, 31 --X-- f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 5, 27, 31 --X-- g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 5, 15,16, 27, 31 --X-- h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 5, 27, 31 --X-- i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 4, 5, 27, 31 --X-- j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4, 31 --X-- Evaluation Implementation of the SRTP has no impact on hydrology or water quality. Conclusion: No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 10, 31 --X-- b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 9, 25, 31 --X-- c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 5, 12, 31 --X-- Evaluation The SRTP recommended service changes are consistent with the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan which encourages the expansion of public transit services. Conclusion: No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 5, 31 --X-- b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 5, 31 --X-- Evaluation No mineral resources associated with this project. ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 240 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-2193-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 Conclusion: No Impact 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 3, 9, 10, 31 --X-- b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3, 9, 10, 31 --X-- c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 3, 9, 10, 31 --X-- d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 3, 9, 10, 31 --X-- e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 3, 9, 10, 31 --X-- 12, 31 --X-- Evaluation There are no recommended changes in vehicle type which would increase noise. Current proposed alternative energy fleet conforms with applicable noise ordinances. Conclusion: No Impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1, 31 --X-- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 31 --X-- 1, 31 --X-- Evaluation: No housing related impacts associated with this project. Conclusion: No Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1, 4, 9,31 --X-- b) Police protection? 1, 4, 9,31 --X-- c) Schools? 1, 4, 9,31 --X-- ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 241 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-2193-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12 d) Parks? 1, 4, 9,31 --X-- e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1, 4, 9,31 --X-- f) Other public facilities? 1, 4, 9,31 --X-- Evaluation There are no impacts on public services. The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing services with minor additional service expansion along appropriate corridors within city limits and CaPoly University. Conclusion: No Impact 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1, 10, 31 --X-- b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 10, 31 --X-- Evaluation: The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing bus services, with only minor additional service expansion, along appropriate corridors, within city limits and in order to address ridership demands. In theory, riders will be able to access more recreational facilities (e.g. Damion Garcia) on a more frequent basis by using public transit. Although it should be noted that parks are not typically recognized as ma jor trip generators for the Transit Industry. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 2,12, 21,31 --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1, 2, 4, 31 --X-- c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 12, 31 --X-- d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? 2, 21, 28, 31 --X-- e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 4, 31 --X-- f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 2,31 --X-- ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 242 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-2193-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13 Evaluation The SRTP recommended service changes are consistent with the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan which encourages the expansion of public transit services. Conclusion: No Impact 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 7,16, 31 --X-- b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 7,16, 27, 31, 32, 33 --X-- c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 7,16, 27, 31 --X-- d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? 7,16, 31 --X-- e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 5, 7,16, 31, 32, 33 --X-- f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 5, 8, 31 --X-- g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 5, 8, 31 --X-- Evaluation No utility or service systems associated with this project. Conclusion: No Impact 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? --X-- Implementation of the SRTP will have no impact on fish or wildlife. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? --X-- Implementation of the SRTP would not result in impacts that are cumulatively considerable. ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 243 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-2193-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? --X-- Implementation of the SRTP would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Consulted were the ER 101-03, City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR, available for review at the City Community Development Department (919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401), or at the following web site: http://www.slocity.org/government/department -directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Applicable excerpts, analysis and conclusions from the LUCE Update EIR have been added to each impact issue area discussion, as appropriate. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions of the project. N/A 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006 6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010 8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010 11. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 12. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015 13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012 14. 2013 California Building Code 15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan 16. Water Resources Status Report, July 2012, on file with in the Utilities Department 17. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 18. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012 19. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, on file in the Community Development Department 20. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 21. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map 22. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map 23. Archeological Resource Inventory, Applied Earthworks, Inc. October 2015 Attachments: ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 244 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-2193-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15 1. 2016-2021 SL Transit Short Range Transit Plan 2. ER 101-03 ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 245 RESOLUTION NO. PC-USE-OTHER-3400-2016 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING THE 2016-21 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED AUGUST 24, 2016 (CITYWIDE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on AUGUST 24, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-OTHER-3400-2016, Transit Division applicant. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the proposed project makes service change recommendation along existing and appropriate roadways. 2. The project will not constitute a grant of special privilege. 3. The adjacent properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar as this project is not a construction project 4. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring full setbacks because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. 5. The design and approach to grading is consistent with the open space element of the general plan, in such that; the proposed project keeps a low profile and conforms to the natural slopes, and site grading is kept to a minimum. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 3, because the proposed project is not a construction project. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2 - 246 Planning Commission Resolution No. USE-OTHER-3400-2016 (City Wide) Page 2 Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve application USE- OTHER-3400-2016 subject to the following conditions: Planning Department 1. Not Applicable Engineering Division 2. Not Applicable Utilities Department 3. Not Applicable Fire Department 4. Not Applicable On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, and on the following roll call vote: Commissioners: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 24 day of August, 2016. _____________________________ Steven, Secretary Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 3 PC2 - 247 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2 - 248 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2 - 249 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2 - 250 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2 - 251 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2 - 252 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2 - 253 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2 - 254 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2 - 255 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2 - 256 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2 - 257 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2 - 258 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2 - 259 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2 - 260 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2 - 261 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2 - 262