HomeMy WebLinkAboutEast of 101 Transit Development Business Plan Final Report 05-1999Crain & ,Associates, Inc.
120 SANTA MARGARITA AVE.
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
TEL: (650)323-3444
FAX: (650)323-3591
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
EAST OF 101
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT
BUSINESS PLAN
Final Report
Submitted to:
Multi-City Transportation
Systems Management Agency
City of South San Francisco
Submitted by:
Crain & Associates, Inc.
Menlo Park, California
May 1999
Crain & associates, Inc.
120 SANTA MARGARITA AVE.
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
TEL: (650)323-3444
FAX: (650) 323-3591
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
EAST OF 101
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT
BUSINESS PLAN
Final Report
Submitted to:
Multi-City Transportation
Systems Management Agency
City of South San Francisco
Submitted by:
Crain & Associates, Inc.
Menlo Park, California
May 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1-1
Business Plan Purpose ......................................................................... 1-1
Mission and Key Principles .................................................................. 1-1
Overview of Business Plan ................................................................... 1-2
2. SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS .. 2
1
......................................................
Overview of Key Service Concepts .................................... -
2-1
...................
High Demand Services ............... 2
3
..........................................................
Low Demand Services -
.......................................................................... 2-3
Employer and Hotel Shuttle Services 2
6
.................................................. -
3. EMPLOYER SHUTTLES ..................................................................... 3-1
Existing Services .................................................................................. 3-1
Short-Term Shuttle Service Expansion Plans .................................... 3-4
Market Assessment .............................................................................. 3-5
Year 2000 Employer Shuttle Service ................................................... 3-8
2005 Employer Shuttle Services .......................................................... 3-8
4. HOTEL SHUTTLE CONSOLIDATION SERVICE AND
COST PROPOSAL ................................................................................ 4-1
Introduction .......................................................................................... 4-1
Existing Hotel Shuttle Services ........................................................... 4-2
Perspectives on Consolidated Shuttle Services ................................... 4-2
Planning Considerations ...................................................................... 4-4
Service Plan Proposal ........................................................................... 4-6
Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................... 4-10
Consolidated Hotel Shuttle Costs ........................................................ 4-11
Cost Allocation ...................................................................................... 4-12
5. GOVERNANCE .................................................................................... 5-1
Service Planning ................................................................................... 5-4
Operations, Scheduling and Dispatch ................................................. 5-5
Vehicle Maintenance ............................................................................ 5-5
Marketing and Public Information ...................................................... 5-5
6. FINANCIAL PLAN .............................................................................. 6-1
Existing Financial Arrangements and Financing Trends .................. 6-1
Review of Candidate Funding Sources ................................................ 6-3
Estimated Expenses and Revenues ..................................................... 6-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
List of Tables
Table paee
2-1 East of 101 Area, Examples of Existing Shuttle Services .................. 2-2
2-2 Innovative Service Design Characteristics ......................................... 2-4
3-1 East of 101 Employer Shuttle Service Existing Conditions ............... 3-3
3-2 East of 101 Employer Peak Period Shuttle Service Year 2000 .......... 3-9
3-3 East of 101 Employer Peak Period Shuttle Service Year 2005 .......... 3-11
4-1 Service Features Consolidated Hotel Shuttle System ........................ 4-9
4-2 South San Francisco Conference Center Consolidated Hotel
Shuttle Service Alternative Cost Allocation Scenarios ....................... 4-13
4-3 Gateway/Marina Consolidated Hotel Shuttle Alternative
Cost Allocation Scenarios ..................................................................... 4-14
5-1 Recommended Roles and Responsibilities ........................................... 5-2
6-1 Employer Shuttle Funding Scenarios .................................................. 6-2
6-2 South San Francisco, East of 101 Local Transit Services
Projected Expenses ............................................................................... 6-8
6-3 South San Francisco, East of 101 Local Transit Services
Projected Revenues ............................................................................... 6-9
List of Figures
Fi re pa~'e
2-1 Demand Response Shuttle Concepts ................................................... 2-5
3-1 Existing Shuttle Routes ....................................................................... 3-2
3-2 Eastern Shuttle Drop-Offs ................................................................... 3-12
3-3 Smart Shuttle Kiosks ........................................................................... 3-14
4-1 Proposed Hotel Shuttle Routes ............................................................ 4-7
1. INTRODUCTION
BUSINESS PLAN PURPOSE
The primary purpose. of this study is the development of a business plan that
assures the long term health, growth, and coordination of the local transit system
East of 101 in South San Francisco. The short-term focus of the study will be to
determine how to cost-effectively improve shuttle coordination of the employer and
hotel shuttles to attract increased ridership and induce modal shifts from private
automobiles. In looking at these issues, careful attention is paid to existing and
future demand, supply, and pricing of services.
The longer term focus of the business plan to provide guidelines on how the
existing local transit system should adapt to employment growth, changing transit
needs, and major transportation terminal improvements such as the relocation of
the South San Francisco Caltrain station and the proposed ferry services to Oyster
Point Marina.
MISSION AND KEY PRINICPLES
The following provides a mobility mission statement for public transportation
services East of 101.
The public transportation system East of 101 needs to be flexible
and cost-effectively respond to and influence the demands of the market
by undertaking actions and supportive strategies, directly or in
collaboration with others, to provide a full range of choices other than
the single-occupant vehicle.
Flexibilitv: the system needs to have flexibility to adapt to a changing
environment. New office buildings and hotels are being built in the East of 101
area and efforts need to be made to adapt to changing circumstances. Ferry service
may be coming to the East of 101 area, and the system should be able to be flexible
enough to respond to changing demands.
Cost-Effectiveness: the components of the system need to be competitively
bid, and the modes of transportation and capacity should match market demands.
Responding to Market Demands: There are a number of very distinct travel
markets East of 101, with the primary public transportation markets being
employment trips from transportation terminals (BAR,T, Caltrain now and possibly
a ferry terminal at Oyster Point in the future), and the transportation of hotel
1-1
guests to the airport and other key destinations such as the SSF Conference Center.
Service levels need to respond to an array of different market demands.
Collaboration with Others: A successful public transportation system will
require close collaboration with a variety of partners, each playing important
distinct roles. Partners should include employers, hotels, the South San Francisco
Conference Center, Multi-City Transportation System Management Agency
(MTSMA), City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Chamber of
Commerce, SAMCEDA, and transportation service providers.
Range of Transportation Choices: The East of 101 public transportation
system should focus on how to most effectively move people. Travelers should have
an acceptable range of choices on when and how they make the desired trip.
Provide an Integrated Transportation System: It is important to provide an
integrated system of services. While there is little need or opportunity to fully
integrate employer shuttles and hotel shuttles, there are opportunities for
potentially integrating low demand, off-peak services, and administration of
services.
OVERVIEW OF BUSINESS PLAN
Chapter 2 provides an overview of service delivery options for public
transportation services East of 101. In particular, options for serving low demand
services are highlighted. Chapter 3 describes existing shuttles services East of 101,
highlights performance indicators, describes short-term service expansion plans,
provides a market assessment, discusses the impacts of an Oyster Point ferry
service, and the impact of the Caltrain station relocation. Finally, ridership
estimates, costs, and several performance indicators are projected for the Years
2000 and 2005. Chapter 4 is the hotel shuttle consolidation proposal chapter. It
describes existing hotel shuttle services; provides different perspectives on
consolidated hotel shuttle services; discusses key planning considerations; discusses
a service plan proposal; highlights roles and responsibilities; and provides options
for cost allocation. Chapter 5 provides a governance plan broken down by key
functional areas such as management, operations, and marketing. Roles and
responsibilities are provided with a particular focus on management considerations
for continuing to foster partnerships. Chapter 6 is a financial plan, reviews
available funding sources, and provides an overall summary of public
transportation revenues and costs.
1-2
2. SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS
OVERVIEW OF KEY SERVICE CONCEPTS
The markets and demand patterns in the East of 101 area require some
innovative approaches to supplying public transportation services. With the BART
station, Caltrain station, and San Francisco International airport being adjacent to
the area, there is an ongoing need for shuttle access to employment sites and hotels
in the area. The East of 101 area already has a number of different types of shuttle
service methods as is illustrated in Table 2-1. Large buses are utilized for tour bus
operator airport transfers to a hotel, and for employer shuttle services to BART.
Small buses are extensively utilized for a variety of shuttle purposes, from hotel
shuttles to employer Caltrain shuttles. Taxis are utilized for whole variety of
purposes, although mostly for trips to the airport.
Three concepts are important in understanding the different types of service
options available. The first is the degree of trip dispersion. The degree of dispersion
ranges from one origin to one destination such as a hotel shuttle to many origins to
many destinations such as a taxi trip. Trips between one origin and one destination
are typically the most convenient from the passenger standpoint, are the simplest
from an operations standpoint, and depending upon demand, can yield very high
trip productivities as is the case with many charter bus hotel transfers. At the
opposite end of the continuum, services with many origins to many destinations are
difficult to serve with public transit, yield very low trip productivity (e.g. measured
in passengers per hour), and typically have the highest cost per passengers. In
Table 2-1, the rows provide the continuum of different trip patterns and the degree
of trip dispersion of existing shuttle services East of 101.
A second important consideration is the density of trip demand. Genentech
and Gateway have a significant employee base that can utilize BART, for example,
and the high demand is very concentrated along a defined corridor during the
commute hours. During off-peak periods, the demand density is significantly less
and can utilize a taxi instead of a large bus to satisfy demand.
The third consideration is the product of the degree of trip dispersion and
density of trip demand. Fixed route, fixed schedule transit can very effectively serve
concentrated trip patterns with a high density of demand. More dispersed trip
patterns with lower demand density are most cost-effectively served with demand
responsive treatments.
2-1
TABLE 2-1
EAST OF 101 AREA
Examples of Existing Shuttle Services
Decreasing Trip Densities
Larger Small
Bus Bus Taxi
One Origin, Charter Hotel Hotel
One Destination Hotel
Transfer Shuttle Reimbursed
Off-Peak Taxis
o Few Origins Employer Employer
, ,
One Destination Shuttle
to BART Shuttle to
Caltrain
y
~
.4
Few Origins, Genentech Genentech
~
Few Destinations Intercampus
Shuttle Taxi
Program
.S
H
a`°i
Few Origins,
Utah/Grand
~
Many Destinations Caltrain/BART
Shuttle
Many Origins, South SF
Many Destinations Taxi Service
More Demand Responsive
2-2
HIGH DEMAND SERVICES
Travel demand that is very focused with high density of transit demand is
being efficiently and cost-effectively served in the East of 101 area with fixed route
and fixed scheduled services. The employer shuttles to BART are good examples of
effective high demand transit services. The Oyster Point employer shuttle, for
example, has a productivity of 26.3 passengers per hour. The Oyster Point shuttle
costs $1.87 per passenger trip and the Gateway/Genentech shuttle to BART costs
$1.53, and would be considered excellent in the public transit industry. During the
early morning and evening peak periods of airport travel, hotels regularly fill mini-
buses and provide convenient cost-effective service. During these peak periods,
existing hotels often transport 30-60 passengers per hour or more. Such fined-route
and fixed-schedule service are typically most cost-effective for high demand travel
markets that can serve at least 10 passengers per hour, the threshold for high
demand services.
The primary challenge of the East of 101 transit system is to provide cost-
effective service for trip demands that are more dispersed and have lower trip
demand densities below 10 passengers per hour.
There are, of course, transportation services that might be below 10
passengers per hour, but may have the potential of achieving greater productivity.
For services with?-10 passengers per hour, it is often more cost-effective to utilize
fixed-route, fixed-schedule services and provide additional marketing efforts to
increase ridership.
LOW DEMAND SERVICES
There are several markets that can be characterized as low demand services:
• Hotel shuttle service to destinations other than the airport.
• Midnight to 5:00 a.m. hotel to airport.
• Caltrain employer shuttle service to the Utah/Grand area.
• Midday lunch service to downtown South San Francisco.
• Off peak Caltrain service to Gateway/Genentech and Oyster Point areas.
• Off Peak BART to all employment sites.
• Distribution from future Oyster Point ferry terminal.
In contrast to fixed route, fixed schedule service, there is a need to introduce
flexibility into the service design for low demand services. Flexibility can be
provided in the routes, schedules and stops. Illustration of innovative design
characteristics are shown in Table 2-2. Traditional fixed route service combines the
first option under each of these elements. More flexible approaches have variables
2-3
in stops, schedules, and routes that need to be considered. Alternative service is
possible by having some or all stops served on request rather than at all scheduled
times.
Table 2-2
Innovative Service Design Characteristics
Route Schedule Stops
Vehicles follow Vehicles always arrive Designated stops
established route at stops at set times
Exact route defined by
demand
Stops served based on
set schedule but only
on request
Some designated
stops, other stops as
requested
Set route but can
deviate on request
Vehicle in certain
areas at set times
Combination of stops
and other points
within an area
Combination -flexible Schedule developed on Any point within a
route by area, time demand designated area
Combinations Combinations
As a planning guideline, services that cannot be implemented without
achieving a minimum of three passengers per hour should not be considered. In
monitoring program effectiveness, low demand services which fall below this
demand threshold should be discontinued. With scarce monetary resources,
MTSMA management may decide to increase the threshold even higher. The cost
per trip should be kept under $6.00 per trip. It is not unusual, however, for low
demand response service to cost three times or more than a high demand service.
Figure 2-1 illustrates service options that provide various combinations of
flexibility in routes, schedules, and stops that are most applicable to transit services
East of 101. These options are discussed below.
2-4
Figure 2-1
Demand Response Shuttle Concepts
r
Call-Ahead
Curb-to-Curb
- ~
P
.,
~ Passengers are
~ picked up and
~ dropped off
~ at curb with
i trip reservation
~~
Checkpoint
Dial-A-Ride
.~
Route i •
~ determined
by on-demand
~ I requests for stops
•~
~~
~~
SSF
CALTRAIN
STATION
~~
.~~
~. On-Demand
' Route Deviation
i,
. \
,'
.~
I I
I
Traditional Fixed
Route Shuttle
(for comparison purposes)
,~ .
~~.
Route-Deviation
Shuttle
2-5
Route Deviation
r' Route deviation service provides fixed stops along a designated route served
on a fixed schedule. Other off-route locations are served on request. Route
deviation provides better coverage to destinations that have low demand and only
need sporadic service. Typically one hour advance notice with a telephone call to a
dispatcher is required for off-route service. In the Utah/Grand area, for example,
the shuttle could deviate its route between scheduled stops to serve employers and
employees who do not regularly utilize the shuttle service. Route deviation could
also be utilized for a consolidated hotel shuttle system, where hotels with low
airport demand are only served upon demand.
Checkpoint Service
In a checkpoint service there are designated stops, and a flexible route is
determined by demand for that particular trip. Such services are much more
prevalent in Europe. An illustration of this concept would be in the Utah/Grand
area where perhaps 15 strategically placed stops would be designated. For service
to and from Caltrain (with typical passenger loads of 1-3 passengers per trip)
passengers from Caltrain would be dropped at the stop closest to their workplace.
Curb-to-Curb Dial-A-Ride Service
This is your typical taxi service or paratransit service. A taxi or bus is
dispatched to an address and the passenger is taken to their destination and
dropped at the curb. Guaranteed service availability, response time, and price are
key considerations in providing a public transportation service with demand
response vehicles. Genentech currently utilizes taxis to provide linkages to
Caltrain, for example, when the regular shuttle is not working. A number of
industry examples exist for utilizing taxis or dial-a-ride buses for feeder services to
and from a rail station.
EMPLOYER AND HOTEL SHUTTLE SERVICES
This chapter has provided a description of the key considerations for
planning transit services in the East of 101 area. Service delivery options have
been reviewed. In the next two chapters, specific applications for both employer
and hotel shuttle services are discussed.
2-6
3. EMPLOYER SHUTTLES
EXISTING SERVICES
r There are three existing employer shuttle services East of 101 in South San
Francisco:
• Gateway/Genentech
• Utah/Grand
• Oyster Point
All three shuttle services offer connections from BART and Caltrain during
the morning and evening commute hours to employment sites that collectively
employ about 10,300 employees. The three existing shuttle routes are shown in
Figure 3-1.
As shown in Table 3-1, the shuttles provide 802 daily rides which represents
an impressive 3.9% of all employees served. It is impressive in that at most major
suburban employers, transit ridership often represents less than 1% of commute
trips. Annually, the shuttles provide 204,510 rides and are dominated by the
143,820 trips provided along the Gateway/Genentech route. Collectively, this is a
total of 19.9 shuttle trips per total employees served, a very high transit utilization
rate for a suburban employment area.
General performance is exemplary and in some cases approaches productivity
that might be expected in a more urbanized area. For example, the Genentech
BART shuttle serves 38 passengers per hour of service provided, which would place
it at the high end of BART feeder services provided by Samtrans. The 25.1 overall
passengers per service hour at a total cost of $2.11 per passenger trip indicates a
very efficient shuttle system. The 25% employer portion of the cost means that
participating employers are paying on average a very reasonable $0.53 per transit
trip to BART or Caltrain.
While general performance is excellent, a closer examination of Table 3-1
reveals some significant differences in shuttle performance. The Utah/Grand
shuttle service performance is significantly below that of both the Gateway/
Genentech and Oyster Point shuttle services. The 12-passengers per hour of service
is less than half the productivity of the other two services. Smaller and more
dispersed employment sites in the Utah/Grand area do not have the employment
densities that are offered in the Gateway, Genentech, and Oyster Point Marina
areas. The Caltrain component of this service is even worse, with 0-7 (average 3.5)
passengers going to or from Caltrain on a particular trip.
3-1
'~i ~~
a ~ ~
m ~ ~ ~~
f w ~
a, m /
y .`c G ~ 1
•~ ,1 ~
` 1
~;
,'; \
p~ ~.; ``0 `~~.,
`: I ~, ~ ~
al ~ N f ~
o c l ~ ~-~ ~° 1 _ f
~j~ :1 '~- ~ 1 f
~',.~d0 ;.1 ~
m .~ ~ ~b~ ,! 3 ~~~ ~ gym.
~,
,tea -,,,;;~. 1 ~. T ~
3
~ v ~~~~ e f
C'3 ~~` 1:
~~
.C -~..
~~
Q-
r
0
c
~~
ae
~~~`
~p ,
v
0~~a
i
Q'
a
c
~ro
~.
W
~ y ~
~
~
O
W ~ +~ m o
W
.~
W
' O
O ~ O ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c
`
~ ~ ~ >. d p >. d ;~ cYu
a~
~ C~3
0 a~
7 ~-
0
C ~
~
~ ~ C
2 ~ f '~ ~
`~ m i v Q
W m
F°
any Pla!~alAll
~a~!
~`
Na
w ~ •O off' ..
~UU ~~ ~ ~
~^^^"`'`"~~~ BAYSHORE
FRWY
a^b ~apUr~
v
3
°alepy ueS
3-2
~,~ ~ r°~ o v° o`no c`no ~ rn
~ ao ~ c0 v v o ~ ~
_
~ 3 T
~
N ~ M
r ~ N
~ C
D l
l
Q ~ N r M
d3 EA
~ O ~ O to ~ O ~
N
~ ~ ~ 0
7 p ~
p a pl C
D O
0
N d'
N ~ C
r 0 r 0
0
O
U C
D
~
Q ~
w
~ ~
rn
ro ~~~ rn rnv° v
~ v_
C M
N
0 ~ ~
~. O
O C
D
1 N n M
(A Q O r N ~
w U ~ b9
?` ~
~ ~ CN7 O C07 ~ O N COD
• l r
~o~ r
O O O O O O O O M I~ O O O O
m CO M O
' ~ N r M CD N M CD O O O O
W j U ? O t1) C1
) O O to to *- y ,U 7 00 ~ 00 Cn N CV
V C L p I M r s N r r O O L OI to to ~ ~~ to
Q>= U>
W E» ~
N T CD 00 CD ~ N CO N 00 f~ M f~ M M
J M a M 1~ O ~ 0 Cf)
~ ~"~ U` ~
p y ,a
- O O O O O
O 0; O
_ d p ~
I
~U
~_~ W ~ ~
m ~
~"~ ~ Z ~.,~ r~ r ~ o
W O O O _
Q~ U
U p
~
~~
~
~~
(C y ._ eo
r v r N
N
F'JZ ~F- mm c c c ~U
a > ~ ~~
~
W N ~ ~
r W C1~ CD 0 ~A C1) O 0 O r O ~ M O r
~ X ~ f0 L M 00 N f~ O I~ ~ ~ Cb ~ (D O t!)
0 7 to E N O ~ E N O l!) N 7 M r r N N N
LL
O a x c °~ co ri rS
N ai
N co o co
N r M v I
~ p
_
~ Q LU Q Q T
T N a.
N
Q I~ f~ ~ M to O 0 N O N ~ CD f~ O
W ~ T L ~ O~ (n O tt r O ~ T et O T CD M
.
i 00
~ ~
~ ~
O.
U
w
~ ~
C O O O M M M o 0 0 0 0 0
d~ t~ ~ N ~ u N O. =
~ ~ O O ~ M m
0
j
Z
CD (D
N
r r
p
n ~ M O N M r M
D
j
,
O
O
fl
~ N
N
U
. ,
~ w
W ~
c
' ~ c
'
m O ~
H H !--
U
o U U
c m at3 c m _
D c otS c
~ Q m Q Q W ~-
Q Q Q
~ m~ C
a as
o mUcn m mUcn v mU m mU
a ~ -p
a a
~ ~
~ ~ L ~
CO ~
~ m L m
y
CC
L ~ T °
cn C'3 ~ O ~ a C7 ~ O H
-
3-3
SHORT-TERM SHUTTLE SERVICE EXPANSION P
LANS
r In early 1999, MTSMA is planning to expand the existing shuttle route
system to improve the overall service levels to Oyster Point and the Utah/Grand
areas.
Utah/Grand
The Caltrain component of the Utah/Grand shuttle currently constrains the
overall shuttle market for that area. In fact, only between 0 and 7 (average 3.5)
CalTrain passengers are picked up or dropped off at the station per trip. Overall,
90% of the passengers have a trip end at BART and are required to stop at Caltrain
from BART in the morning and at Caltrain to BART in the afternoon. This
r significant time delay for BART passengers discourages marginal shuttle ridership.
MTSMA is planning to rectify this problem by consolidating the Oyster Point and
~ Utah/Grand into one fixed route to Caltrain.
The existing shuttle schedule is less than ideal for Caltrain passengers. As
an example, the 7:31 a.m. northbound and 7:16 a.m. southbound train are currently
served by a 7:40 a.m. shuttle from BART, requiring extensive waits by passengers.
Only 5 of 9 northbound trains are covered during the morning and 5 of 8
southbound trains are covered in the evening, because of the BART shuttle
schedule.
A contract with a demand response service provider has the potential of
providing better service, covering more trains, and providing service to more
employers than the current fixed-route service or the consolidated route structure.
If Caltrain ridership and productivity in the Utah/Grand area does not improve,
MTSMA might consider requesting proposals for a demand response service
provider for the consolidated Caltrain feeder service in FY 1999/2000. As was
discussed in Chapter 2, the key monitoring indicators should be passengers per
hour, and cost per trip.
The existing routing of the Utah/Grand Shuttle provides as good of coverage
as possible with a single fixed route vehicle to BART. There are significant pockets
of employees working in the area that are not within reasonable access to the
shuttle route. The demand is not sufficient to warrant another fixed route vehicle
in the Utah/Grand area. MTSMA is planning to upgrade the vehicle from a 33-
passenger shuttle bus to a full-sized 47-passenger motorcoach bus, and increase
runs to enable more employers along the destination-end of the route to join.
3-4
Oyster Point
MTSMA is planning to improve Oyster Point BART service to include five
morning runs and five afternoon runs using a 47-passenger bus. At present, service
is limited to two runs in the morning and two in afternoon, a less than ideal
schedule. The expanded shuttle program would enable the inclusion of additional
companies along Oyster Point Blvd.
MTSMA management is currently consolidating the Oyster Point and
Utah/Grand Caltrain shuttles to increase the number of runs from Caltrain to a
larger area East of 101. This will work to improve service and increase Caltrain
ridership. The existing configuration that combines Caltrain and BART ridership is
inefficient, requiring BART passengers to wait while the bus drops off only a few
passengers at the Caltrain station.
MARKET ASSESSMENT
Over the past several years, overall shuttle ridership in the East of 101 area
has experienced very strong growth. Between 1996 and 1998, for example, average
weekday ridership on the Gateway/Genentech shuttle has increased from 368 to
457, a 24% increase. In part, this growth has been a product of both improved
service levels, increased supply of service, and a growing employment base. These
factors will continue to drive ashort-term increase in shuttle growth. The currently
planned service level improvements will add additional service hours and additional
ridership.
A market assessment has been prepared which provides the basis for future
shuttle ridership projections. The market assessment is based on a review of
employment growth, shuttle ridership figures, interviews with key stakeholders,
and the review of a November 1998 employee survey conducted by MTSMA.
Employment Growth
A significant proportion of this ridership growth will be fueled by overall
employment growth and increased participation of existing employers in the shuttle
program. By the end of 1999, a total of 12,850 employees will be served by the
shuttles, compared to about 10,300 today.
The Gateway/Genentech shuttle route service area is expected to have
significant employment growth as new Gateway buildings are occupied and
Genentech begins to attract additional ridership from three new buildings this year
and two more over the next 2-3 years. Overall employment for employers along this
shuttle route is expected to increase from 6,500 to 7,460.
3-5
As described above, efforts are underway to recruit additional employers
along the Oyster Point shuttle route. This and additional employment from
development along the corridor will drive much of the anticipated growth in shuttle
ridership along the corridor.
r 1998 Employee Survey Results
In August 1998, an employer/employee survey was undertaken by Valerie
Brock Consulting for MTSMA. A total of 859 employers in the MTSMA service area
were sent a letter requesting voluntary participation in a survey of employees. A
total of 111 employers agreed to participate in the survey, representing 20,004
employees. Only 2,094 returned questionnaires, aresponse rate of just 10.4%. A
total of 1,037 responses were from South San Francisco, and about 80% of those
responses were from employees East of 101. About 655 of the responses were from
Genentech and 382 were from 22 other employers. While these response rates are
less than ideal, a close examination of both the Genentech responses and the 382
responses from the 22 employers revealed a fairly representative sample in South
San Francisco.
There are some important findings of the survey.
1. About 8% of all employees surveyed utilize the employer shuttle service.
7.2% of Genentech employees surveyed and 8.4% of other employees reported
utilizing an employer shuttle to work. Compared to a typical 1-2% transit share of
employees in suburban business park environments with a similar lack in public
transit services, this is an important and significant market penetration. The use
of employer shuttles has had a significant impact on providing a realistic
transportation choice to commuters in the East of 101 area.
2. Almost 4 of 10 shuttle riders reside in San Francisco. This geographical
market dominates the existing shuttle program. This number is identical to the
1995 on-board survey of actual shuttle riders conducted by Crain & Associates for
Genentech and helps to validate the survey results. Providing access to the Glen
Park BART station is particularly important to realizing the market potential in
San Francisco. This location provides more employees with the opportunity to
access the shuttle through connections with Muni, walking, and in some cases
driving to the shuttle.
Oakland/Berkeley/Alameda only represents about 10% of the total shuttle
ridership. The survey results show significant dispersion in other geographical
areas in the East Bay. On the Peninsula, ridership is also very dispersed
geographically, with no significant geographic concentrations of shuttle ridership.
3-6
3. The surve results do rovide indicators of otential market ex ansion.
When respondents who currently drive alone were asked which commute options
they would consider using one or more days per week, (respondents could list more
than one response), the employer shuttle was listed by 29.5% of all 311 interested
drive alone respondents.
i
When all respondents were asked "which of the services below would
~ encourage you to leave your car at home and try a commute option?" 24.7% of all
~ respondents listed a shuttle from the train station to work as a desired service.
1 Unfortunately, the survey did not provide any information on the
respondents' propensity to utilize a shuttle service. However, a review of the zip
code distribution of employees found that a significant concentration of interested
employees reside in San Francisco. An almost equal concentration of interested
employees reside in the San Mateo/Foster City area pointing to a possible Caltrain
~ market.
Possible Introduction of Oyster Point Ferry Service
There has been preliminary discussions on the feasibility of providing ferry
service to the East of 101 area. The South San Francisco City Council and San
Mateo County Harbor District formed a Water Transit Services Fact-Finding Panel
in July 1998 to explore the feasibility of this service. A primary goal of the fact-
finding panel is to encourage the Bay Area Council to include Oyster Point as part
of its Bay Area wide study and action plan.
^ The 1998 Commuter Survey conducted by MTSMA provided an opportunity
1 to assess potential usage of a ferry service. Respondents were asked "If you
normally drive alone to work, which of the commute options listed in the KEY above
1 (all possible commute modes, including `ferry boat' were included) would you
consider using one or more days a week?" Of the 726 South San Francisco survey
respondents who drove alone to work, 51 or 7% listed the ferry boat as one of the
1 options they would consider.
Survey respondents were also asked to respond to the following question:
1 "Which of the services below would encourage you to leave your car at home and try
a commute option?" Respondents could choose multiple options. About 87% of all
1 respondents indicated that there was a service that would be helpful to them.
20.5% (185) of all of those cases responded that ahigh-speed ferry to Oyster Point
would encourage the respondent to leave their car at home.
Encouragingly, 56.3% of those interested currently drive alone to work.
Another 14% use BART or Caltrain currently, and 21% currently carpool or
vanpool. Of the 185 respondents interested in the high speed ferry service, 16% live
3-7
in Oakland/Alameda and another 16% live in San Francisco. The remaining two-
thirds of the responses are widely dispersed throughout the Bay Area.
Long-term ferry commuter ridership to a terminal at Oyster Point will
largely depend on the destinations served, hours served, and the service levels
provided. At the time this business plan was being prepared, projections of
commuter ferry ridership were not available.
YEAR 2000 EMPLOYER SHUTTLE SERVICE
Table 3-2 shows a continued very strong upward trend in ridership, from
about 802 average daily riders today to 1,036 daily riders by the end of the Year
2000. The table provides a detailed breakdown by shuttle route of employment
served, expected daily ridership, expected annual ridership, daily and annual
service hour requirements, and cost information.
Overall employment served is expected to increase from 10,300 to 15,750
through employment growth, and expansion of the number of employers
participating in the shuttle program. The number of annual vehicle hours is
expected to increase from 8,160 to 9,435 and the possible addition of demand
response taxi service to meet the Utah/Grand Caltrain demand.
The overall annual total cost is expected to increase from $431,460 to
$579,820 annually. However, improved productivity on fixed-route service, and
lower service cost delivery for the taxi service will enable the total cost per trip to
remain constant at $2.19 per trip, despite expected operating cost inflation.
2005 EMPLOYER SHUTTLE SERVICES
By the end of 2000, the Gateway/ Genentech shuttle will begin to reach its
1 peak and shuttle ridership will likely begin to flatten. There are several reasons for
this including a saturation of the available BART and Caltrain market. Shuttle
ridership normally experiences a pronounced "S" curve as employees learn of the
1 shuttle service and try it. Ridership will typically increase slowly at first, then
increase rapidly for several years and then begin to level off as the market is
1 saturated. This is typically amulti-year process and is normally lengthened as
service levels are improved. A 4% penetration rate is likely the point of saturation
unless significant other factors occur, such as a gasoline crisis or major shift in
1 employee residences. Another important factor is that the South San Francisco
General Plan working papers provided to the consultant project that South San
3-8
T~ O r 0 M M I~ ~~ CO (D
N :p ~ W CD ~ ~t M 1~ O CO ~ a0
~ ~ T
~
O 0
~ O
~ ~ am
C
Q ~ ~ f
0
N 0
0 C
T C
O
r C
')
~
b9 y9
~ I~ ~ to
N N n O ~
7
T N OOi ~ ~ _
O r ONi ~ tv ~ ~
O
Q
~ A N N~ M
(
Q ~ N C
D r M T
W
~ ~
~ O ~ O) d O N O 00 N~ O
O ~
O N ~ ~ ~ ~ N
~ -
OD * O
O
E N
C y T O N O A T O CO T ~
y Q O
W U ~ ,~
rn
O >. «. ^ M O NV r~ M N CNO N
O CO O N
N ~ U
W
U ~ ~
W ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ U ~ ~ o
W c~ c M r v r mr .-rM rn
W ¢~= o
F
-
H n
~ ~
= N (O OD I~ ~ ti CO CO T f~
N ~, V r M
~ ~ _
Q ~
N
a °
c
~
0
N
-~ Q ~ ~ h ~
m W Q U d y ~ y 'jC to ~
~
}
~ ~
m ~
m ~ ~ •-
m
W ~ ~ ~
O
J -o a
~
M ~
0
~
~ ~
O
d R1 L
tC 00
'
' a
0
O l1) i
O
0 7 i O
7
~t M I~ O h (O N
W N
' 0
N M M~ V O
~~ ~
Q a
~ c
0 c
D c
0
O W ~ r r N
r
LL
a
0 0 0
I~ N O
N (D OD
O o >, t ~n r co ~~ tO r co M
N ~
H p •Rf ~ O
N 0 ~ r
Q ~
W
~ ~ O O O O
~ O O ~
O W N N N r 0 0 to ~~ 1~
O O f~ 1~ M tD CO N N N ~
~
N d
~
E
w
c
0
m
~ c m
H ~~ o c m
F- 'm o c~
~ ~~ o
D m U in m U u] m U cn
~ °~ ~° c
oC ~. c~ o
a
~ 3 ~
~
v ~
7 ~
cd
m
o
~ C ~ O f--
U O M O~ O N
~
L
cOO~ C
cOp
~~
(j~2
~ M M N O
N ~ 1~ O O ~ O
OT ~ d O O O r O O
~U ~
E
W ~
~ ~ O ~
~ M
~~ d ~ N M~ N M
F-
es
U
F
-
b9
~ rn r ~ ~ rn
~ N ~ CU QO O
~ 7 ~' r = N r
~ O
~ _
O N ~ N CD i~
N ~ ^- d' O N f c0
n a .
~ U
0 0 0 0 0 0
~'
p In 00
O O ~ 'tt M
Q M N O C'7 r
a
N
a
O
Q
U
p c c c
? H ~ f-- 'cC f-- 'Ri
W
V m U m U m U
Q a~
~°
c
'
~ ~ ro o
n
O ~ .
~
m y
a
C7 ~ O
O
N
b9
0
O
N
O
C`7
M
0
H
3-9
Francisco employment will only increase by 2.9% between 2000 and 20051, a
significantly lower rate than was experienced between 1995 and 2000. These two
factors will likely dampen shuttle ridership growth between 2000 and 2005.
Table 3-3 provides a summary of 2005 estimates of employment served,
ridership, shuttle supply, and performance indicators. Overall, employer shuttle
ridership to and from BART is estimated to increase from 206,318 in 2000 to
212,302 in 2005. Caltrain shuttle ridership is also expected to increase from 57,971
to 65,216. This includes rehabilitation and upgrade of the Caltrain service by
2005, which according to Caltrain's Rapid Rail Study, will increase ridership by
5.4%.
Impact of Caltrain Station Relocation
By 2005, the South San Francisco Caltrain station could also be relocated. A
preliminary study prepared by Dyett & Bhatia and Parsons Brinkerhoff for the City
of South San Francisco, had the following objectives:
Improved accessibility to pedestrians from the downtown area,
Shuttle drop-offs and pedestrian accessibility from businesses east of the
station; and
Bus/taxi drop-off from bus routes along Airport Blvd.
As shown in Figure 3-2, the study looked at three alternative eastern shuttle
drop-off locations:
1. City-owned property adjacent to Industrial Way.
2. Alternative drop-off with siding removed.
3. Alternative drop-off without siding removed.
The primary impact on the existing shuttle service will be a slight
improvement in overall travel time from train disembarkment to when the
commuter is dropped off at the shuttle stop nearest to their work.
The Utah/Grand area will benefit most from the relocation, and more
businesses will be within walking distance of the Caltrain station.
Ferry Service Ridership Scenario
While Oyster Point ferry service operating characteristics have not been
defined, it is important to include such a service in the overall ground
1 Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments; Sedway group on p. 7-9 Chapter 7 of Economic
Development section of General Plan draft.
3-10
W
U
W
W
J
N
ch W ~
c%~a°O
W Y N
J Q ~
tea}
W
O
J
a
W
O
r
W
F-
N
Q
W
~` ~ f ` ~ M N tOA O O ~ t0 O to N
~ ~ ~ O I~
~
II ~ ~ (A CO N P7 to ~ to M O ~ O ~
C L =
Q ~ N c00 COD ~ ~
'' N OOD C~ N M
r COO COD N ~
r OOD
~
~ ~
~ T ^ ~ O_ N
~ CD O O CO
~ ~
0 CO O pp ~
O N
O
w.
7 O v) lA O N ~ r ~ ~ O c
D t
fJ
Q E OI
U ~ N~ ONi N ~ O~ N N O
L~ O
l i
O
W
~
ER
'O t1~
O O) a0 aD
M
D
N
~ to O CD
~ O
O to a0 c7 O
~ M ~ ~ O
~
~ O
D O
D C
D ~
T" r- N CD CD M
N
C A
~
~ O W N
O 0
N
Q O C
D
N M G
p r O M M a
0
(~
W
b4 N h
~
0 0~ to
~ cO t!') t!7
O C'7 N O O N O
N (b O O 0 0 0 0
N O O N ~
C7D
p .~ O
I t7 ~ r I~ ~ M D7 O
N ~ U r M
b9 ~
~~~ O O O
n M O ~n ~
O O ~ O ~
O ch O
O
~ U ~ t1) ~ I~ ~ n «) C7 N
C e p
= C7 r~~ r~~ r r r~ Ch O
> C O O C
O O
~ y y Q
~
T CD N N
^ d d~ to
(~ CO ~ M
O
>. U 7 C C C .0 r ~
I
~ j 2
E
E E c
~
~ ~ E
~
N
~ C c C c
~
L
~ ~ 7 .~ 7 .~ ~ j j j
j ~ m m XN m~~ m m
f- F- F- H
~_
~ C3 L
~ 1~ V N
ll7 O O CD ~ O O~
N to C~ O CD O CO O
N ~ lA (70 f~
E
p 7 i I~ O t1D In P1 O ~t d0 N r N N C
O
N 0
M M O M~ OD ~ ~ t7D O~ CO
Q~
W a
0 r ~ r r
r
r M
tf) O O N r U) C7 CT ~
~ U .. OM OM ~ ~ CC t9 0 0 ~ 0
O ~ O COO COO C COO C C COD COO C COO
U ~ _
b9 ~
~ ~ ~ aND a00 aN0 oN0 ~ N N CNO
O y ,w O O O O O O O r r p
°' U F-
W ~
~~ N N N N M O O S
r N M Ch C7 M N In Cn CV
F-
I- U
~ ~
~ ~ ~_ C3 n CO co M Cn ca O
N 7I M N C ~ C C N. = C7
~ O
c~ _
N >+ L C~ j .N- ^ M
~ T A M
N T I~ 7 O N O N E V N M CO I~ O to
O •~ N N N d r~ N O N r r~~ 0
N ~ ~ r ~
'~ CO
~ U
pC
C
~ ' O O O~~~
~ r r r (7 M C7 ('7
~ ~ ~ ~ 1~
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
to E d et
~ ~
l1') to ~ C21
N
fl..ro to O to
M 0 0 O n O ~ ~ O C1D
0 0~ ^ M O CO cD CV N N N CO ~ ~ N r r Crj r 0 Crj
d
N W ~
a N
~
O ~
Q ~` ~'
D ~ ~ li
o Z ~ ~ c
~~ c
~
- m c ~c
. c ~
' U ca° ca c~°
~ c~
a
I-
Q i o
~~ ro o
H
~-~~ ro O
H
~=~~ Z
Q
~F-y
Q~
~~a~
O ~
mU iiin mUiici mU
~'
i ~ mU in
a~
~ u
.
n 0 mU0 mU0
~ d
~ c
C7
c
_
c
~
m ~.
`~ as
C3 o
a m
W ~ ~ ~°
L CC ~ O CC
cn C3 ~ O H N C'3 ~ O F-
3-11
f
p ~
{ ~ ` ~.
,, ~ ` . .
,~ ~ ~
1`, z
i C ~
i' ~' 4
I V
I ~ ~
! w~
-,
~~ ~~.
1 •`'~
,`
~ ~~~
,,
,,y
~,
it
~~ ''~
~, `~,
~~
'~ ~ `, ,~~
~,1 'Z r~
~ ~~-~
~~, ~,/
•: % r~ -
.~' ~ ~ i' I
.~ • ~, _
~ ~, • /.~
i =._. i ~ 3
',~ ~ ~+ ~ i.~ 11 l _
~ i ~~ ...
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, et al, Caltrain
Station/Airport Blvd. Area Study: Issues
and Alternatives. Prepare~c' or ity o~3-12
~o•San Francisco. January 1998.
._ .--.
~~~~~ ~ .~
i ~~
i
i ~
i ~
'AvE1vuF ;
•. ~
V '; p°r~ng easer'nent~
r ;
/ % -- `~
•----~
. ~ ~.
/ ~ ~ _
-~ -~
Y
x_
O
.. ,1
.. ~ --
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~, - .,-
. ,. , ,
,,. ~ ,.~
;'. ~~.
.,
~.
,~
•' Other
~.- .. i
__ ...
;,.•
~ ~
~ ~
~ i i
~j
,.
~~
-~~~
Alternative east shuttle drop-offs:
O On City-owned property adjacent to
Indusvial Way
O Alternative drop-off with siding removed
O Alternative drop-off without siding removed
L i'
i~
FIGUtZE 3-2
EASTERN SHUTTLE DROP- OFFS
~ transportation business plan. It is likely that ferry service ridership will be less
than Caltrain ridership. A planning scenario has been developed that assumes that
ferry service will be 60% of Caltrain ridership.
Lon~Term Vision for Smart Shuttle Svstem
As has
been discussed previously, there are a number of trips East of 101
that cannot be served efficiently with fixed route service. These low demand
markets includes Caltrain trips in the Utah/Grand area, midday lunch trips to
downtown South San Francisco, distribution of passengers from the ferry terminal
to employers and hotels. As will be discussed in the next chapter, there are also
periods of the day such as late evening where demand response service would be
more effective for low demand services than a fixed route shuttle for service to and
from the airport. Also, non-airport destinations would be better served with
demand responsive service.
Two types of demand response service is envisioned. For the airport during
low demand periods, a route deviation type service would be effective. For example,
it is time consuming for the shuttle vehicle to stop at every hotel on each run if
there are often no passengers waiting. Under the route deviation operation, the bus
would only be routed to the hotel if a guest needs to be dropped off or a passenger is
waiting.
For other low demand services, a checkpoint dial-a-ride service, as described
in Chapter 2, has a number of efficiency advantages that could work well in the
East of 101 area. If spaced appropriately, checkpoints can be in easy walking
distance, the pick-ups and drop offs are much more efficient, and passengers are
literally waiting at the curb instead of waiting inside the door to be picked up.
The East of 101 area is an ideal location for a checkpoint dial-a-ride service
with the use of kiosks that passengers would utilize for access. Unfortunately, the
United States does not have good examples of such systems, but they are
extensively utilized in Europe. A modern version of the French "Par borne" is
pictured on the following page; they are mini-tubular kiosks similar to the
emergency type "kiosks" located throughout the Stanford University campus. For
purposes here, we will refer to the kiosks as smart shuttle kiosks.
The smart shuttle kiosks would be connected with a button to a central
dispatch center. With advanced technology, the possibilities for linking East of 101
employers, hotels, and downtown South San Francisco are significant. The kiosks
would be activated when a passenger needs a ride, and could be adapted to mini-
kiosks with telephone and radio beacons that could be linked to one or more service
providers. The key to this system is a very professional service provider with a
dispatcher who can efficiently organize trips and communicate clearly.
3-13
Figure 3-3
SMART SHUTTLE KIOSKS
~~ .
emu.
\\.'~. `
T i~ A
rA~
3-14
Kiosks would be located at each hotel and at strategic locations throughout
the East of 101 area at key stops. A contract with a demand response provider
would require a guaranteed response time (say a maximum of 10 minutes). The
same system would also be connected to the bus contractor dispatch system for the
airport shuttle. Let us say a passenger wants to go to downtown South San
Francisco for lunch. By punching the activation button, a taxi or other small van
would be alerted and dispatched to pick him/her up within 5 minutes and take the
person to their destination. The kiosk would be equipped with a telephone and a
computer screen to confirm the trip and the expected pick-up time. The van might
stop at two other checkpoints along the way. Or the kiosk could be utilized to order
a cab for a trip to the airport. During the midday, at 1:00 p.m., there may not be a
passenger to pick up at the Super 8 motel, thus the hotel shuttle bus will only make
stops where the kiosk is activated, which will make the hotel shuttle system that
much more effective.
For service to Caltrain in the afternoon, taxis would only pick up passengers
where the kiosks are activated. Passengers could also make standing reservations
in the morning for a pick up at a certain time. Reservations could also be made
directly on an Internet site. After more than three no shows the user cannot
continue to utilize the advance reservation system.
The smart shuttle system is a key means of integrating employer shuttle
initiatives with those of hotel shuttle services. Advertising on the kiosks could help
to offset the costs. Because of the potential size of service contract for employer
shuttle, hotel shuttles, and the demand response services, a professional service
provider who can adhere to specific performance and communication standards can
be obtained in a competitive procurement process.
The feasibility and costs of the smart shuttle kiosks have not been fully
explored. The smart shuttle kiosks could be part of a demonstration grant
application.
3-15
4. HOTEL SHUTTLE CONSOLIDATION
SERVICE AND COST PROPOSAL
r
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a proposal for a consolidated hotel shuttle system East
of 101 in South San Francisco. This draft has been circulated to existing and future
hotels in the East of 101 area for review and comment.
This chapter builds on a preliminary discussion paper that was presented at a
Chamber of Commerce meeting of existing and planned hotel general managers on
September 22, 1998. As promised to participating hotels in the interviews,
background information on a particular hotel is not reported, and only averages and
generalizations are provided.
The basic concept of a consolidated shuttle system is that a private
contracted service would serve a cluster of hotels in a general area with a dedicated
fleet of buses and would replace the existing fleet of minibuses operated by
individual hotels. Hotels would be served every half hour for service to the airport
utilizing medium-sized buses fueled with compressed natural gas, with fifteen
minute service offered during the height of the peak morning and evening periods.
Distinctive colors, shuttle name, and appropriate signage would enable hotel
personnel to easily communicate with guests on how to catch the shuttle to and
from the airport. A separate demand responsive system, the smart shuttles
described in Chapter 3, would be utilized to other destinations with advanced
reservations available at interested hotels.
This chapter starts with an overview of existing hotel shuttle services. It
then reports the results of interviews with hotel general managers, the airport,
three possible vendors of the hotel shuttle service, and the Multi-City
Transportation System Management Agency (MTSMA), a joint powers authority
that is addressing traffic congestion and air quality issues in northern San Mateo
County. A phased consolidated shuttle service plan is then provided with proposed
service parameters. Finally, a cost proposal is presented with suggested potential
cost allocation options provided.
A meeting of hotel representatives will be held in the near future to receive
input and suggestions on the consolidated hotel shuttle plan. With funding from
the City of South San Francisco, MTSMA is overseeing the current study of future
ground transportation East of 101, including hotel shuttles. MTSMA is currently
managing three different consortiums of employer-based shuttles for commute
transportation to and from BART and Caltrain.
4-1
EXISTING HOTEL SHUTTLE SERVICES
All hotels interviewed have a shuttle service provided with vans and/or
shuttle buses owned or leased by the hotel. Drivers are hired individually by the
hotels, and several drivers work for multiple hotels. While some hotels have had
difficulty hiring and retaining drivers with Class B licenses, this is not a problem
with other hotels. Fleet size ranges from one to six vehicles per hotel.
The number of guests that utilize a hotel shuttle van ranges from
approximately 25% to 40% of hotel guests. About half of the sample hotels limit
their shuttle service pick-ups and drop-offs to the airport, and the other half provide
services to non-airport destinations such as shopping centers, restaurants, and
business locations.
Peak demand for all hotels is generally in the 5-9 a.m. period, when
significant volumes of guests need to get to the airport in a timely manner. A
secondary peak occurs between 8-11 p.m., particularly for hotels with a significant
park-and-fly market segment.
Most hotels operate service every half hour, and one hotel offers service every
15 minutes during the peak periods. Handling demand during the off peak varies.
Most hotels continue to offer service on the half hour and hour, 7 days a week, 24
hours a day. One hotel only offers van service 16 hours a day and reimburses for
taxi service when the van is not operating.
PERSPECTIVES ON CONSOLIDATED SHUTTLE SERVICES
Hotel Perspectives on Consolidated Shuttle Service
Hotels are not in the transportation business, and many would prefer to
outsource this important function if:
• Costs were comparable or lower.
• Service quality and reliability for hotel guests is maintained.
• Management time spent on shuttle service issues is reduced.
Several hotel managers expressed aggravation over the details of running a
shuttle operation, including the headaches over maintenance problems, driver
recruitment, and overall service logistics. The drain on management time was
expressed repeatedly.
4-2
Hotels operate the shuttle system for competitive reasons. If a contractor
provided the service for all area hotels, it would create a level playing field and
r would let hotel managers spend more time on their "real" hotel business.
Airport Staff Perspective
As any regular traveler can tell you, curbside pick-up and drop-off space for
hotel shuttle vans at SFO is extremely limited. The starting and stopping of diesel
and gasoline powered engines on the shuttle creates air quality problems. Efforts to
consolidate hotel shuttles into a system would be well-received by SFO
administrators.
A SFO consultant recently completed a study of ground transportation at the
airport which has facilitated some discussion about possible means of reducing
shuttle van congestion and air pollution. SFO is just starting an incentive program
for clean fuel shuttle vehicles. SFO received a grant to provide vendors with
incentives to have some of the shuttle fleet operate with clean fuel vehicles. A CNG
fueling station is being installed at the airport to facilitate efficient fueling. Super
Shuttle is an early participant and will be demonstrating the use of CNG fuel for
some of their fleet in the near future.
Shuttle consolidation and use of clean fuel vehicles are very likely to be
mandated in the near future. These regulatory requirements are the key
assumptions of this chapter. Design of a consolidated shuttle system could be
significantly different if clean fuel vehicles were not required. The airport held a
meeting on November 20, 1998 to discuss the future of hotel shuttles with hotel
owners. A subsequent meeting was held on February 5, 1999. At this meeting the
airport clarified its objectives on consolidation and clean fuel vehicles and
established a schedule for implementation. According to the meeting summary, the
airport staff has proposed a differential fee structure in which hotels that have
reduced their trips by one-third, preferably through consolidation, and have started
converting their fleets to clean fuel vehicles, would pay fees moderately higher than
the present level. Hotels that fail to meet these objectives will pay approximately
three times the new fee level for each month in which the objectives are not met. In
addition, the shuttle operating frequencies of non-compliant hotels may be limited.
Hotels are not immediately required to convert their fleets, but vehicles ordered or
placed in service after December 31, 1999 must be clean fuel vehicles in order to
avoid the higher fees and service frequency limitations. The differential fee
structure, under the current staff proposal, is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2000.
4-3
PI.~~IVNING CONSIDERATIONS
Service Level Considerations
Service reliability is extremely important. Significant volumes of
passengers are transported to and from the airport on a daily basis. Hotel guests
rely on the hotel shuttles to be on time in order to catch their flights. The ability of
the consolidated shuttle to keep on schedule and to have additional buses operate
when vehicles reach capacity is absolutely critical to the success of a consolidated
shuttle system.
Guest travel time to and from the airport must be reasonable. According to
hotel managers, the number of interim stops is not as important as the elapsed time
from the airport to the hotel. Any elapsed guest travel time that exceeds 35
minutes to or from the airport would exceed a perceived reasonable travel time
threshold. To meet this service standard, two and eventually three routes in the
East of 101 area will be required as new hotels open for business.
Direct vehicle communication was cited by several hotel managers as
currently very important. While such direct communication with each driver may
not be possible under a consolidated shuttle system, direct and responsive
communication with a centralized dispatcher would likely provide the necessary
communication standard.
Overall driver courtesy must be maintained. Consolidated shuttle drivers
must be trained and closely monitored to ensure that the guest's experience on the
shuttle is as positive as possible. A feedback mechanism from the hotel to the
shuttle service manager must be responsive to ensure good guest relations.
Service hour coverage is expected 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Cost-
effective methods for providing service during off-peak hours, however, is also very
important.
Vehicle size will need to be larger than the standard hotel shuttle van to
accommodate multiple hotel sites. The larger vehicle needs to be able to negotiate
the driveways and parking lots to provide access near the hotel front door.
Accommodating non-airport travel is important to some, but not all,
hotels. Under hotel shuttle consolidation, it is anticipated that a separate optional
demand responsive service would be available to interested hotels. For example,
smart shuttle service might be available to shopping locations, the South San
Francisco Conference Center, downtown South San Francisco, and a future ferry
terminal at Oyster Point. A limited number of off-site destinations might be
4-4
considered. Telephone hot lines or lobby computer kiosks may help to facilitate
easy arrangement of such trips and could have other guest information benefits.
Cost Considerations
Comparable costs must be achieved if the consolidated shuttle is going to
be of benefit to the hotels. Several of the hotels do not have explicit transportation
cost budgets and recognize that some of the costs to operate the shuttle services are
"hidden" as part of existing hotel staff duties. The "hassle" factor was mentioned by
several hotels. Lower costs, of course, would be well received by hotel management.
Equitable cost sharing is not viewed as a potential problem by interested
hotel managers. Cost allocation by actual usage was the consensus cost sharing
principle. Two hotels suggested that hotels equally share fixed costs and share
variable costs based on actual usage. One hotel manager suggested that the
consolidated shuttle system offer the opportunity for some shared expenses with
guests. Partially subsidized bus tickets would be purchased at participating hotels
(details for ticket purchase for the trip from the airport would need to be worked
out).
Other Important Planning Considerations
An easily recognizable image will necessitate a creative touch so that
hotel clerks and confirmation letter inserts can easily describe and distinguish the
right consolidated shuttle bus route to hotel guests.
An airport information station was described as a potential helpful
amenity by several hotel managers.
Clean fuel vehicles generally require a heavy duty bus. Compressed
natural gas typically has storage tanks on the bus roof, adding typically 18 inches
to the bus height. Potential problems with adequate clearance of driveway
overhangs were noted at two possible hotel participants.
Circulation patterns for shuttle operations require the utilization of a
medium-sized bus with a similar wheelbase and turning radius as the existing
minibuses. Heavy duty small buses with compressed natural gas can have a useful
life of 10 years, but the up front capital costs are more than double the cost of the
current hotel fleet.
Existing shuttle drivers are currently union employees. The selection
criteria for a shuttle service provider should include criteria for recruiting existing
shuttle drivers and utilization of union drivers.
4-5
All vehicles need to have the capabilit o accommodatin
y f g two
wheelchairs. This is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
P
SERVICE PLAN PROPOSAL
In order to address the above planning considerations, the following are key
features of the service plan for consolidated hotel shuttle service East of 101.
Su~~ested Routes to Airport
A phased approach of consolidated shuttle services would be developed. The
first route would be available to the six existing hotels adjacent to the South San
Francisco Conference Center as shown in Figure 4-1 if a minimum of five hotels
agree to participate. The Quality Inn could also participate once it is operational.
A second route would commence upon the opening of the Hampton Inn and Hilton
Gardens, as also shown in Figure 4-1 as the Gateway/Marina route. If all planned
hotels in the East of 101 area are indeed built, there is the potential for three
different routes. The proposed Gateway/Marina route on Figure 4-1 in the year
2000 or beyond would be split into two routes. One route would serve Grand
Avenue, Gateway, returning to 101 on Oyster Point Blvd. The other route would
just serve hotels along Oyster Point Blvd.
The inset on Figure 4-1 shows the detailed routing of the proposed South San
Francisco Conference Center area hotel shuttle. Providing convenient service at the
front door with clean fuel vehicles will require 30 foot heavy duty buses with
turning radiuses similar to existing minibuses. Discussions with a bus
manufacturer has confirmed that such a vehicle is available. Detailed field tests
may require some minor circulation improvements including the restriping and
possible elimination of some parking spaces and some additional parking
prohibitions with red curbs. At the Super 8 Lodge and Grosvenor hotels, clearance
restrictions would require the bus to stop in the parking lot, similar to how existing
tour buses make stops.
During the morning a.m. peak periods, buses are expected to load full and
would be split into two subroutes that could more efficiently serve the following
hotels: 1) Airport Executive Inn, Ramada, and Super 8 hotels with buses utilizing
Airport Blvd. to access 101; 2) Vagabond, Travelodge, Grosvenor, and Quality Inn
(future) utilizing San Bruno Avenue for access to 101. At all other times, the route
would follow the configuration shown in Figure 4-1.
4-6
FIGURE 4-1: PROPOSED HOTEL SHUTTLE ROUTES
~~
FQ ~~q
o ~Rt~
P~
5~
P~
0
i
Oyster Pant Blvd.
2
X
a t
0
9 t/'
~~ ,
~~ SSF
-' Conference
~ Center
1^ \\
1
~
~: -
: ~~
`
' \ ~ .
. _
Proposed ShuttbRoutea ,
'
\ •
Gateway/Marina.
;
~ (w ~J
`--';\ ~ ~ ~
-
SSF Cmierence Center
7
~
~
\~ \~~ Nate/s
\
,
z~ ~\ +, Travelodge
~ \ i,,~ ~. /
~" t
l:'~
j Airport Executive !nn
R
I
d
Ai
l
\
.
~~ `~ r
~
'
` ama
a
nrr
rport
Super 8 Lodge
~
r,.
~.~
\ `!'`, ~
~ Vagabond Inn
I ,
~ ~
,~ Grosvenor Hotel
~
,'' star Point Marina
~~ Embassy Suites Hotel
\
t ~
Comfort Suites
New Hotel Development
`~..'~ Quality Inn
'`•~,,~ Hampton Inn
Hilton Garderts/Larkspur Landing
SAN FRANC/SC0 Homestead Village
Marriot Residence Inn
INTERNATIONAL Marriot Courtyard
AIRPORT
r~
~ New La Ouinta
Pi10np
c+r,v. otels Under Review
~~ / l t Oyster Point Marina Resort
~~~e~~~
~ 2 Howard Johnson's
....~r/~,~^.--^'`
~'/ 3 Marina Hikon
4-7
The Gateway/Oyster Point Marina Route has the potential for serving the
Comfort Suites, Embassy Suites, Hampton Inn (under construction), Hilton
Gardens (under construction), and the Oyster Point Marina Hotel.
r Proposed Vehicle Specifications
A 30-foot compressed natural gas (CNG) bus should have a turning radius
that is generally equivalent to a shuttle minibus. Buses should have perimeter
seating with internal luggage racks. Flip-up seats that would accommodate two
wheel chairs would provide needed flexibility and ADA compliance. A low floor bus
could substitute for the need for a wheelchair lift, but such buses do not have the
necessary turning radiuses required. The height of the bus, including the
compressed natural gas tanks on the roof of the bus, should not exceed 11'6". Field
testing should be undertaken to confirm that the buses to be purchased have the
maneuverability to negotiate the internal site routes necessary for the shuttle
routes.
It is very likely that SFO will require clean fuel vehicles in the near future.
SFO is installing a new compressed natural gas fueling station to accommodate
future demand. This plan assumes that CNG vehicles will be required. To date,
minibus manufacturers are currently not producing minibuses with CNG.
According to one manufacturer, the primary reason is that Ford and General
Motors are not providing warranties to engine conversions. In addition, the typical
minibus has already reached federal weight restrictions, and CNG would exceed the
weight limits. There are conversion companies that are currently seeking approval
for minibus CNG conversions, but such approvals are at least two years away.
A 30-foot heavy duty bus has an approved CNG engine that can accommodate
the necessary weight and safety requirements for CNG. The larger buses can
accommodate about 25 passengers with luggage, the minimum capacity for a
consolidated shuttle system. These buses have a 10-year useful life, about double
the normal life span of the existing hotel minibus. From along-term life cycle cost
standpoint, the medium-sized heavy duty buses are more economical than the
existing minibus fleet.
The painting scheme on the outside of the bus should identify the shuttle
area to be served. The bus color needs to be coordinated with the airport.
Proposed Service Features
Table 4-1 provides a summary of the service frequencies by time of day, the
number of vehicles required, and the hourly seating capacity available for the two
recommended routes. During the peak morning hours between 5:30 and 8:30 a.m.,
4-8
the SSF Conference area shuttle service would be available eve
ry fifteen minutes
with a fleet of six buses, with a seating capacity of 200 passengers per hour.
r Overflow vehicles would be available to accommodate large tour groups on a pre-
arranged basis. At other times, service would be available every 20 minutes.
Finally, between 11:00 p.m. and 4 a.m., service would be available every 45 minutes
and would only be served by one vehicle.
Communication S s'
All buses will be equipped with radio communication and automatic vehicle
locator (AVL) equipment. Hotel staff will be able to phone a central dispatcher at
all times who will then communicate directly with the vehicle driver. The
dispatcher will be able to know exactly where each vehicle is and the exact time of
arrival and departure with the AVL equipment.
During off peak periods, the bus will not need to stop at each hotel on each
trip. A visible small tubular smart shuttle kiosk should be installed at each hotel
shuttle stop that would activate a signal to the central dispatcher that a passenger
is waiting at that hotel for pick-up. Similar to a lighted elevator button, the
passenger would push a button clearly labeled airport (with an international
symbol). The technology is also available to provide information to the guest on
exactly when the next shuttle bus will be arriving. The information can also be
made available on hotel desk computer. A direct telephone connection to the
central dispatcher is also feasible. The cost and feasibility of such a system has not
been evaluated as part of this work effort.
Table 4-1
Service Features
Consolidated Hotel Shuttle System
Area
Route"
Time Period Frequency
(Minutes)
Buses Passenger
Capaci /hr.
SSF Conf. Ctr. AE, RA, S8 6:00-9:00 a.m. 15 3 100
VA, TL, GR 6:00-9:00 a.m. 15 3 100
SSF Conf. Ctr. Full loop 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 20 2 75
SSF Conf. Ctr. Full loop 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. 10 5 150
SSF Conf. Ctr. Full loop 11:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. 45 1 37
Gateway/Marina Full loop 6:00-9:00 a.m. 20 3 75
Gateway/Marina Full loop 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 30 2 50
Gateway/Marina Full loop 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. 20 3 75
Gatewa /Marina Full loo 11:00 .m. to 4:00 a.m. 60 1 25
' AE=Airport Executive Inn; RA=Ramada; SB=Super 8; VA=Vagabond; TL=Travel Lodge; GR=Grosvenor
4-9
Non-Airport Travel
Because of the expected low volume of non-airport related trips and the high
dispersion of destinations, the utilization of taxis is recommended for trips from
hotels to non-airport destinations. As part of the East of 101 ground transportation
plan, contract(s) with taxi operator(s) will be recommended to ensure a guaranteed
level of service quality, such as driver courtesy and response time. Individual
hotels can provide payment vouchers to guests if they so desire for a full or partial
payment of the fare in both directions. Guaranteed rates would be provided to the
top 10-15 most popular destinations. A maximum response time of 10 minutes
would be required at both ends of the trip. The contract would require the
availability of wheelchair accessible vans.
A trip could be ordered at the front desk or possibly in the long-term through
the smart shuttle kiosk described at the end of Chapter 3.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
In considering the cost components of the hoteUairport shuttle, the following
functional areas need to be considered:
• Operations: the provision of vehicles, drivers, dispatching, operations
supervision, insurance, driver training, fuel, and lubricants.
• Maintenance: regular preventative maintenance, mechanical repairs, body
work, and road calls.
• l~lannin~: implementation planning, SFO interface, service level planning,
financial planning, and service monitoring reports.
• Financial Management: fiscal agent, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and
overall accounting.
• Administration: contract management, procurement, budgeting, risk
management, policies and procedures, problem resolution and service
monitoring.
• Marketing and Customer Service: joint efforts to publicize shuttle availability,
collateral material development, complaint resolution, and customer feedback.
It is recommended that MTSMA staff would handle the planning,
administration, marketing and customer service functions with a cost reimbursable
contract. The City of South San Francisco would handle the financial management
function. A consortium of hotels would provide overall policy and decision-making
authority over the consolidated shuttle service.
4-10
CONSOLIDATED HOTEL SHUTTLE COSTS
Interviews with several hotels found that many hotels do not have a good
accounting of what it actually costs to operate their own shuttle service on an
annual basis. What many hotel managers consider to be "the shuttle costs" are the
driver wages, gasoline, and maintenance of the vehicles. While such costs often can
comprise 70% of the total costs, they do not include the amortized annual costs of
the vehicle, insurance, and time spent by other hotel personnel to coordinate,
supervise, and manage the shuttle operation.
Operations and Maintenance Functions
It is recommended that the operations and maintenance functions should be
handled by a transportation vendor under contract to the City of South San
Francisco. At the service levels described earlier, there will need to be a total of
23,360 vehicle service hours for the South San Francisco Conference Center area
shuttle and 17,885 vehicle service hours for the Gateway/Marina shuttle service.
Such a service would need to be competitively bid with both local tour bus operators
and national transit operators invited to bid. Along term contract of this
magnitude would typically attract multiple bidders. Based on comparable transit
service contracts, a typical operations and maintenance contract would cost,
without vehicles, about $981,000 for the Conference Center area shuttle and
$751,000 for the Gateway/Marina hotel shuttle. Competitive bids often vary by
10% or more and may vary more because of the CNG vehicle requirement.
Existing shuttle contractors do not have CNG vehicles in their fleet. In order
for a shuttle vendor to purchase such vehicles, along-term contract of 4-5 years will
be required. How shuttle vendors will price the introduction of CNG vehicles into
the shuttle service is not known. The provision of heavy duty 30-foot buses with
CNG typically cost about $180,000 per bus. Airport staff have indicated that
special grants will likely be available to pay the difference between normal diesel
vehicles and CNG vehicles, or about $25,000 per mid-size bus, according to a major
manufacturer. If the shuttle vendor were to amortize the vehicle over its 10-year
useful life and utilize a 4% per year discount rate with a base cost of $155,000 per
vehicle, the annual costs for the required fleet of 12 buses would be $254,500 per
year. If costs are only amortized over the term of the contract, the capital cost rate
would be significantly higher. Capital costs should be allocated among the shuttle
routes based on the peak fleet needs of each shuttle route.
The February 5, 1999 airport staff proposal does not require the conversion of
the hotel fleet to clean fuel vehicles immediately. It would be possible for a contract
vendor to utilize the existing fleet and phase in the new equipment over a period of
time. This would reduce the costs of the consolidated hotel shuttle system
4-11
presented below. It ma also be ossible for a lead
Y p hotel to operate the shuttle
service without the use of a third party vendor.
r
Administration, Financial Management Planning and Marketing Functions
A preliminary estimate of providing these functions under contract to
MTSMA and the City of South San Francisco (Financial Management) would be
r $120,000 per year.
I Total Costs
The total cost of providing the Conference Center area shuttle under the
contracted service scenario would be about $1.125 million per year and the
Gateway/Marina shuttle should be approximately $818,813 per year. Including
hotel shuttles to other destinations, administrative support and a vehicle grant, the
total hotel shuttle costs would be $2,344,069.
COST ALLOCATION
There was consensus among existing hotels interviewed that the allocation of
shuttle costs should be based primarily on actual utilization. Another possible
allocation method would be to base the costs on a fee plus actual utilization. For
purposes here, the fee is based on the fixed costs of shuttle administration and the
capital costs of the fleet.
In order to meet guest travel time concerns, while at the same time providing
sufficient economies of scale, 5-7 hotels closely clustered would provide an optimum
consolidation effort. To illustrate the point of economies of scale, four of six hotels
in the Conference Center area expressed interest in further exploring the
consolidation concept. As shown in Table 4-2, if only these hotels participated, the
cost to Ramada Inn, with an estimated 30% of utilization, would be $337,772 per
year. If all six hotels participated, the cost to Ramada Inn would be $247,699 per
year. Table 4-2 shows both the 100% utilization and fee plus utilization scenarios
from the Conference Center area airport shuttle.
Table 4-3 provides both the 100% utilization and fee plus utilization
scenarios for the five hotels that should be operational in 1999 along the
Gateway/Marina corridor.
4-12
Table 4-2
South San Francisco Conference Center
Consolidated Hotel Shuttle Service
Alternative Cost Allocation Scenarios
100% on Utilization Fee*" and Utilization
Assumed Utilization Flat Utilization
Hotel' Utilization Allocation Fee Allocation Total
Travelodge 22% $ 247,699 $ 24,131 $ 215,846 $ 239,977
Airport Executive Inn 22% 247,699 24,131 215,846 239,977
Ramada Inn-Airport 22% 247,699 24,131 215,846 239,977
Super 8 Lodge 8% 90,072 24,131 78,490 102,621
Vagabond 4% 45,036 24,131 39,245 63,376
Grosvenor 22% 247,699 24,131 215,846 239,977
Total 100% $ 1,125, 906 $ 144, 786 $ 981,120 $ 1,125, 906
' For illustration purposes. Hotels have not agreed to participate.
"Flat fee is based on fixed administrative and vehicle costs
100% on Utilization Fee'" and Utilization
Assumed Utilization Flat Utilization
Hotel' Utilization Allocation Fee Allocation Total
Travelodge 30% $ 337,772 $ 36,197 $ 294,336 $ 330,533
Airport Executive Inn 30% 337,772 36,197 294,336 330,533
Ramada Inn-Airport 30% 337,772 36,197 294,336 330,533
Super 8 Lodge 10% 112,591 36,197 98,112 134,309
Vagabond 0
Grosvenor 0
Total 100% $ 1,125,906 $ 144,786 $ 981,120 $ 1,125,906
' For illustration purposes only. These hotels expressed initial interest in exploring a consolidated
shuttle system, and these numbers reflect the costs based on an assumed utilization assumption
IF the four hotels participated.
'* Fee is based on administrative and vehicle costs.
4-13
Table 4-3
Gateway/Marina Consolidated Hotel Shuttle
Alternative Cost Allocation Scenarios
Sample Short Term (Five Hotels)*
100% on Utilization Fee** and Utilization
Assumed Utilization Flat Utilization
Hotel* Utilization Allocation Fee Allocation Total
Embassy Suites 30% $ 245,644 $ 13,529 $ 225,351 $ 238,880
Comfort Suites 20% 163,763 13,529 150,234 163,763
Oyster Point Marina 10% 81,881 13,529 75,117 88,646
Hilton Gardens 30% 245,644 13,529 225,351 238,880
Hampton Inn 10% 81,881 13,529 75,117 88,646
Total 100% $ 818,813 $ 67,643 $ 751,170 $ 818,813
* For illustration purposes only. Hotels have not agreed to partcipate.
**Flat fee is based on fixed administrative and vehicle costs.
4-14
5. GOVERNANCE
Providing a coordinated public transportation system East of 101 requires an
appropriate governance plan. There are a number of very important functions that
need to be carried out, including:
• General management and administration
• Service planning
• Operations, scheduling, and dispatch
• Maintenance
• Marketing and public information
• Personnel management and training
Each of these functional areas are discussed in detail below. The governance
plan is intended to build upon and support the existing collaborative relationships
among the MultiCity TSM Authority, the City of South San Francisco, employers,
hotels, and property managers.
The governance plan is meant to take an opportunistic viewpoint and is not
meant to be prescriptive. There is a potential for productive partnerships that can
only be nurtured and facilitated if there are enough benefits for each party to
partake in. It must be completely clear that the roles and responsibilities described
below are only being suggested, and that participation in any collaborative effort is
strictly a voluntary decision of that entity.
Table 5-1 is a summary of the recommended roles and responsibilities for
transit services in the East of 101 area of South San Francisco. The rationale for
the role in each functional area then follows.
The San Francisco Airport also plays a very important and significant role in
the development of the hotel shuttle system. The airport is concerned with curbside
congestion and air quality at the airport and is therefore planning to further
regulate hotel shuttle access and vehicle type into the airport. This will have an
economic impact on the shuttles themselves.
5-1
Table 5-1
Recommended Roles and Responsibilities
Service
MTSMA City of SSF Employers Hotels Provider
General Facilitator; Fiscal agent To be
Management service determined
broker
Service Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly
Planning review review review
meetin s meetin s meetin s
Operations Contract Contractor Service Service Employer
management feedback feedback shuttle
and
demand
response
service
Maintenance Contract Contractor Employer
management shuttle
and
demand
response
service
Marketing Development Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribu-
and desi tion
General Management
General management encompasses management style, organizational
structure, and relationships with the board of directors. General management of
public transportation services in the East of 101 area should be a primary
responsibility of MTSMA
MTSMA's mission is to provide alternative transportation choices in San
Mateo County. Its management philosophy has been to facilitate partnerships with
employers, developers and public agencies to accomplish this goal. As the
organization has matured, obtained skills and an excellent reputation that was
confirmed in .extensive stakeholder interviews, specific roles and responsibilities
have adapted to changing needs. Nevertheless, the continued ability to be the
helpful facilitator needs to be a cultural mantra of the organization. No business
plan such as this can anticipate the changing needs that the future might need.
But it can reinforce a management structure that provides the type of leadership
5-2
re aired to enable the lan framew r
q p o k to be sustained and to facilitate actions that
lead to improved transportation choices in the East of 101 area. This is not a static
process and needs the flexibility to grow and adapt to changing markets, land use
decisions, and needs of its customers to continually assess what roles it can
realistically take on itself, and which it should work with a partner on.
Evaluating its role in hotel consolidation is a good illustrative example of the
necessary management style. MTSMA is in charge of this study in response to new
hotels that do not necessarily desire operating their own individual shuttle services
and together with the City of South San Francisco is being proactive in evaluating
r future needs. In its facilitation role, it engaged Crain & Associates to conduct an
evaluation of hotel consolidation, and is bringing the hotels together to address
upcoming changes in airport regulatory and fee requirements. This is a good
example of helpful facilitation. The actual role that MTSMA plays in any future
collaborative effort should be determined in consultation with the hotels, the
MTSMA board and the City of South San Francisco. If the hotels decide to utilize a
third party contractor, they might decide to utilize MTSMA's expertise from the
employer shuttles to manage the procurement process and possibly manage the
service provider contract. MTSMA should let the hotels know of their available
expertise and the costs associated with the services to be provided. The
management service would only be provided if the hotels desired MTSMA to take on
r the responsibility like employers have done with the Caltrain and BART shuttles.
The guiding principle for subsidy should be correlated to public benefit and
MTSMA's mission. The BART and Caltrain shuttles are clearly a public benefit and
are directly tied to funding sources of reducing auto congestion and auto emissions.
Participating employers do have a private benefit in terms of being able to attract a
broader labor pool, retain and recruit employees but do pay for about 25% of the
costs. The consolidated hotel shuttle, on other hand, does have a public benefit by
encouraging clean fuel vehicles and reducing congestion at the airport; but the
direct private benefit to the individual hotels assumes a large majority of the
benefits and the hotels need to be responsible for most of the shuttle costs. In this
case, the MTSMA board might consider paying for 50% of the administrative costs if
the hotels pay for 50%.
When the shuttles involve a few employers and hotels, there is little
coordination required for the lead hotel. As efforts have been expanded to increase
the participation of different employers, the management of the shuttles by the lead
employer has been increasingly difficult. Essentially, the fiscal agent responsibility
and overall coordination of different employers is too much to expect a single
employer to take on. This was the experience of the lead employer for the
Utah/Grand shuttle service. MTMSA has taken over the role of contract manager
and service coordinator (i.e., "lead employer"), and the City of South San Francisco
has taken over the role of fiscal agent. It is important to keep employers
5-3
em owered in feelin ow
p g nerslup of the shuttle services, so it is important that
employers do more than just write a check. MTSMA should host quarterly (or
perhaps 3 times a year) meetings with employers to get their input on services,
discuss service changes, develop marketing strategies, etc. For simple notices, the
utilization of email distribution should be encouraged.
The partnership between MTSMA and the City of South San Francisco that
has emerged recently for handling the Utah/Grand shuttle service seems to make
long term good business sense. In taking on the contract management
responsibility, MTSMA is doing what it does best, facilitating transportation choices
for its customers. Since the City of South San Francisco already has an established
Finance Department, the duty of fiscal agent is also a natural role for the City.
From a purely business standpoint, it makes sense for the City of South San
Francisco to also be a fiscal agent for a consolidated hotel shuttle system, if that is
what the hotels ultimately desire. The hotels bring significant financial benefit to
the City, and providing the fiscal agent service is a very small cost compared to the
benefits received. In order for a consolidated hotel shuttle system to work with a
third party contractor, there is a need for a fiscal agent and the City of South San
Francisco is ideally suited to fulfill this role.
A significant management challenge will be the integration of demand
response services across the employer and hotel shuttle services. The important
feature that will need to be carefully monitored is a guaranteed response time, to
ensure that passenger waits are no longer than 10 minutes.
SERVICE PLANI~TING
MTSMA should utilize its expertise to be responsible for planning of services
in the East of 101 area. Route and other service parameters should be developed in
collaboration with participating partners. A significant short-term challenge will be
making the demand responsive components of the public transportation system
East of 101 work.
MTSMA also needs to be responsible for monitoring existing services in order
to make service refinements as necessary. Once a year, an on-board survey should
be conducted that measures customer satisfaction with service parameters, and
collects sufficient information to document a passenger profile. Efforts should be
made to utilize this information to market the service.
5-4
OPERATIONS, SCHEDULING AND DISPATCH
For the employer shuttles, the operations, scheduling, and dispatching
functions have historically been in the purview of a contract operator. These
functions should stay privately contracted with MTSMA staff providing contract
management services. It is important for MTSMA to establish service quality
standards regarding driver training, on-time performance, response time for
demand responsive services and overall service reliability. A performance audit by
an outside contractor is recommended every two years.
For the hotel shuttle, the operations, scheduling, and dispatching functions
have been the responsibility of each individual hotel. With a consolidated shuttle
system, there is a need for either coordination among the hotels or the use of a third
party shuttle contractor for the operations, scheduling and dispatch functions. This
is obviously a decision of the hotels. MTSMA should help to facilitate the process
and keep the hotels informed on their transportation options.
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
For the employer shuttles, this should also be a contracted function. Most
shuttle service providers offer this function on a regular basis. MTMSA, as contract
manager, will need to pay attention to preventive maintenance practices,
sufficiency of the maintenance facility, vehicle condition, repair scheduling, parts
management, contracting out for major repairs, and communication with
operations. A performance audit of the contract maintenance function is also
recommended every two years.
MARKETING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
This is an extremely important function that should not be overlooked.
There is significant opportunity for increased awareness of the employer shuttle
service by existing employees. The employee survey results do point to an untapped
market for expanding ridership of both the BART and Caltrain shuttle services.
With the expanded and revised services in the Oyster Point and Utah/Grand areas,
there is a new product to promote, and MTSMA should take full advantage of the
opportunity.
Marketing and public information is a current role and responsibility for
MTSMA and should be continued. As it has in the past, to be effective, marketing
efforts should be done in conjunction with the private sector. Secondarily, requiring
the city and the shuttle provider to market the service is vital. The objective is to
5-5
ensure that each component agency on the service delivery side is prepared to
distribute marketing materials to any customer/potential customer with whom they
may come into contact.
5-6
6. FINANCIAL PLAN
This chapter discusses existing financial arrangements and trends that will
impact the future financial picture of public transportation services East of 101.
Candidate future funding sources are then discussed. Finally, expenses and
revenues are projected between FY 1999-2000 and FY 2004-2005. These financial
projections are a key element of the business plan.
EXISTING FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FINANCING TRENDS
Employer Shuttle Services
Funding for transportation services East of 101 is currently a mixture of
private and public funding. The employer shuttles from Caltrain and BART involve
a unique partnership between the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA), Caltrain's Joint Powers Board (JPB),
and employers. Historically, BAAQMD has provided 50% of the funds, the JPB
25%, and the employers contribute the remaining 25%. The JPB must reapply for
TFCA each year with no guarantee of approval.
According to a February 1997 report on the Caltrain shuttle bus plan, "future
funding for the shuttle program is currently uncertain."` TFCA funds for shuttle
projects are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, as are additional operating
funds from transit agencies. Starting in FY 1998/99, TFCA funds can only be used
for up to 30% of the total project cost. At present, JPB is picking up the difference
in costs.
It is clear that the JPB and/or the employers will need to shoulder an
increasing percentage of the total shuttle program cost. It is projected that there
will be increasing pressures from funding agencies to increase the employer share of
total costs from 25% to a higher percentage. Table 6-1 is a summary of several
funding scenarios for the employer shuttles. The "existing" split in shuttle costs is
shown in the first column. At present, employers contribute about $108,000 towards
the operation of the shuttle program.
In 2000, an expanded shuttle bus program will increase the combined shuttle
budget from $431,460 to $579,820. The local employer share will remain at 25%
and will increase to $144,955.
' Peninsula Joint Powers Board: "Caltrain Shuttle Bus Program Plan Using Shuttle Bus Service to
Improve Connections to Caltrain Stations," February 1997.
6-1
Table 6-1
Employer Shuttle Funding Scenarios
Fundin Scenario - % S lit =JPB/Em to erslTFCA
Existing 2000 Scenario # 1 Scenario #2 Scenario # 3
Fundin Source 25/25/50 45/25/30 40/30/30 65/35/0 55/45/0
Gateway/Genentech
JPB/Samtrans $ 65,535 $ 121,502 $ 108,002 $ 175,503 $ 148,502
Local Employers 65,535 67,501 81,001 94,501 121,502
TFCA 131,070 81,001 81,001 -
Total
( 262,140 270,004 270,004 270,004 270,004
Oyster Point
JPB/Samtrans 17,850 71,152 63,246 102,775 86,963
Local Employers 17,850 39,529 47,435 55,340 71,152
TFCA 35,700 47,435 47,435 -
Total 71,400 158,115 158,115 158,115 158,115
Utah/Grand
JPB/Samtrans 24,480 68,265 60,680 98,605 83,435
Local Employers 24,480 37,925 45,510 53,095 68,265
TFCA 48,960 45,510 45,510 -
Total 97,920 151,700 151,700 151,700 151,700
All shuttles, combined
JPB 107,865 260,919 231,928 376,883 318,901
Local Employers 107,865 144,955 173,946 202,937 260,919
TFCA 215,730 173,946 173,946 - -
Total $ 431,460 $ 579,820 $ 579,820 $ 579,820 $ 579,820
Future Employer Shuttle Financing Scenarios
Three funding scenarios have been prepared, with progressively more
financial participation from employers. In Scenario #1, the JPB decides to pass on
some of the reduced TFCA funding (50% to 30%) to employers, increasing the
employer percentage participation from 25% to 30%. The impact on employers
would be an increase from $144,955 to $173,946, a 20% increase. Scenarios #2 and
#3 assume that TFCA funding is discontinued. Scenario #2 assumes that the split
between JPB and the employers is 65%/35%, resulting in an increase in employer
contributions from $144,955 to $202,937, a 40% increase in employer contributions.
Finally, Scenario #3 assumes a 55%/45% split between the JPB and the employers,
resulting in an 80% increase in employer contributions.
Interviews with employers found that they strongly believe in the concept of
a shared partnership with JPB, BART, and the Air District to fund the shuttle
program. At their current participation levels, employers feel they are receiving a
6-2
good return on their investment. The impact of increased employer contributions
from 25% to 30% would probably be minimal from an employer participation
standpoint. An increase beyond 33% of the total cost may result in a significant
drop-off in some employer participation, as employers would begin to feel that they
are paying more than their fair share of total shuttle expenses.
According to JPB calculations, the Caltrain shuttles are a cost effective way
to provide feeder bus service. At the historical funding split of 25% from JPB, 25%
from employers and 50% from TFCA, they calculate a $2.19 benefit per $1 cost to
JPB. However, if TFCA funding is eliminated, anything below a 45% participation
rate by employers (or other source), by JPB's own calculations, would bring the
benefits to JPB below $1.00 for every $1.00 invested.2
From this business plan standpoint, the funding uncertainty of the Caltrain
and BART shuttles are a cause for concern. A diversification of funding sources
that would continue to provide benefits to employers, the JPB, BAAQMD, and other
partners would be prudent.
Hotel Shuttles
Existing hotel shuttles are for the benefit of hotel guests. Hotels are
responsible for paying the costs of their shuttle services. Although inquiries were
made on perceived costs of operating individual hotel shuttles, detailed information
on any one hotel shuttle was not collected as part of this study. In fact, individual
hotels were promised that individual information would not be reported as part of
this study.
As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4, the most significant trend in
providing hotel shuttle service is the pending requirement of the airport for hotel
shuttle consolidation and use of clean fuel vehicles.
REVIEW OF CANDIDATE FUNDING SOURCES
Fares
The JPB conducted a survey of riders and found that over half of the riders
indicated that they would not be willing to pay a fare of $1.00 on the employer
shuttles. The historical perspective of shuttle riders has been that the shuttles are
a free service. Typically, for every 10% you increase fares, there is a corresponding
3% decrease in ridership that results. Since riders already pay significant fares on
2 Ibid. p. 29.
6-3
BART or Caltrain, the extra $40 per month for the shuttle would likely cause
shuttle ridership to plummet.
In effect, the employers participating in the shuttle program are paying the
equivalent passenger fares through a direct subsidy. Many similar systems have a
farebox recovery ratio of 20%, since this is a requirement in order to receive
Transportation Development Act monies (see page 6-5). With employers paying
25% of the costs, the farebox requirement is being satisfied.
Hotels do not charge shuttle fares for competitive reasons. For hotels in the
area around the airport, the standard is complimentary shuttle service. A couple of
hotels were interested in exploring fares as part of the hotel shuttle consolidation
effort, but other hotels were against such a plan.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Funds
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), in conjunction
with the Department of Motor Vehicles, collects a $4.00 surcharge on motor vehicle
registrations paid within the Air District's jurisdiction. The surcharge provides
funding for the Air District's Transportation Fund for Clean Air, which is
distributed to public agencies to implement projects to reduce air pollution from
motor vehicles in accordance with requirements of State Law. Projects relevant to
the East of 101 transit plan include:
• Purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for school districts and transit
operators.
• Implementation of rail-bus integration and regional transit information
systems.
All Transportation for Clean Air funds are distributed by BAAQMD. The
distribution is through two processes. Forty percent of the funds generated in San
Mateo County are returned to San Mateo County. The Transportation Authority
recommends which projects to fund with the 40% money. The remaining 60% of the
revenues, referred to as the Regional Fund, are first used to fund certain Air
District Programs, such as the smoking vehicle complaint line. The remainder of
the Regional Fund is distributed to public agencies on a competitive basis based on
five evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria is heavily weighted towards cost-
effectiveness.
MTSMA has been successful in obtaining TFCA funding, both at the local
and regional levels. Examples of regional grants have included the consolidation of
employer shuttles East of 101 and a clean fuel medium-distance vanpool program.
In addition, the current shuttle funding through JPB is also utilizing TFCA funds.
6-4
r
As discussed previously, continued funding of the shuttle operations through
r TFCA is not certain. In fact, it is more likely that there will be fewer dollars
available to support the shuttle program for operating purposes than previously.
Funding for clean fuel buses typically will score higher on cost-effectiveness criteria.
It is quite likely that the airport, for example, will be successful, in obtaining
funding to pay for the cost difference between compressed natural gas vehicles and
diesel buses which South San Francisco hotels could take advantage o£ It is also
possible that MTSMA or the JPB could apply for funding to procure clean fuel
vehicles for the employer shuttle program.
Potential State Funding Sources
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Local Transportation Funds
TDA funds are derived from the state sales tax and are earmarked for
transportation purposes. The law (SB 325, enacted in 1971) created a local
transportation fund (LTF) in each county that is funded from 1/4 cent of the base
statewide 6-cent retail sales tax.
TDA funds are allocated to Samtrans in San Mateo County and would not be
available for special public transportation purposes East of 101 under current
institutional arrangements.
State Transit Assistance Funds
State Transit Assistance Funds (STA) are available to transit agencies based
on revenue and population based formulas for both transit operations and capital
needs. STA funds have been volatile in past years in part due to the fact that
generation of funds is dependent upon motor fuel consumption and price. Available
STA monies are being fully utilized for local transit services.
Potential Federal Transit Revenue Sources
There are a number of federal funding sources that are typically available to
public transportation agencies. Most, such as Section 5307 funds, are administered
by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and allocated by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission. Currently, available formula funds are being utilized
by Samtrans or Caltrain services. There are a few competitive sources that might
be utilized by an East of 101 public transportation service.
6-5
Congestion Mitigation and Air Buality Improvement (CHAD) Program
The CMAQ program is designed to include air quality improvements as a
specific objective through the funding of transportation projects and programs.
Under eligible projects, operating assistance for up to three years can be provided
for transit services that link major activity centers. Under the CMAQ program,
operating assistance for new transit services can be funded with an 80% federal
share. The federal share applies only to the portion of operating costs not covered
by fare revenue or fees for service.
CMAQ funding is available for the purchase of new buses, dedicated to
alternative fuels. Under certain conditions, bus replacements can be funded to
support transit services. Vehicle approvals are on a case-by-case basis.
Samtrans, the JPB and BART are eligible recipients of CMAQ funding in the
MTSMA service area. A partnership with one of the three entities and the
City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) would be required in order to
apply for such funds. Serious consideration should be given to utilizing such funds
for future vehicle procurement for the high volume shuttles services to BART. A
full-sized compressed natural gas vehicle could be owned by the JPB, for example,
and provided to the shuttle service contractor. This is a very common practice in
the transit industry.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants
In the federal reauthorization for transportation, commonly called TEA 21, a
major new discretionary grant program was established, with 60% of the $150
million per year going to urbanized areas such as the East of 101 area. The
program offers discretionary grants for transportation to welfare recipients and
eligible low-income individuals. Funds can be provided for capital and operating
costs of equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance items; promoting
transit use by workers with nontraditional work schedules; promoting the use of
transit vouchers by appropriate agencies; and promoting the use of employer-
provided transportation and transit pass benefits. Project applications need be part
of a coordinated public transportation-human services transportation planning
process.
In awarding these discretionary grants, the federal Department of
Transportation considers the area's population that are welfare recipients, the
area's need for additional services, the extent of coordination with transit providers,
innovative approaches, and the extent of consultation with the community to be
served.
6-6
The East of 101 area might be an ideal area for uttin forth an
P g Access to
Jobs grant. The money would need to be utilized to expand service, and not
necessarily just to improve existing services.
Welfare to Work Grants
The federal Department of Labor also has a two year Welfare-to-Work (WtW)
grant program enacted under the Balanced Act of 1997. The WtW program assists
states and local communities to provide the transitional employment assistance
needed to move hard-to-employ recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF) into lasting unsubsidized jobs. The current grant program is
targeted at recipients with long-term welfare dependence. Providing transportation
assistance is an eligible activity under the grant program. The competitive grants
are both direct federal grants and through the State of California. MTSMA recently
r applied for a grant to provide commute information to targeted recipients and the
grant was not approved. In the San Francisco Bay Area, jurisdictions with
transportation components have been more successful with state WtW grant
applications.
The East of 101 area has a growing number of jobs including a number of
hotel jobs that might be good candidates for existing welfare-to-work recipients.
Cooperative ventures with new and existing hotels and other employers might
result in a successful grant application.
ESTIMATED EXPENSES AND REVENUES
Table 6-2 provides an overview of projected expenses for local transit
services, East of 101. In 2000, the expanded employer shuttle program presented in
Chapter 3, would cost just under $580,000; and implementation of the consolidated
hotel shuttle plan presented in Chapter 4, would cost $2.34 million, for total costs of
$2,923,888. By 2005, expanding the employer shuttles, and adding an additional
hotel shuttle route, plus inflation would bring the total costs to just over $5.0
million.
Table 6-3 is a summary of projected revenues between FY 1999-00 and 2004-
05. For the employer shuttle, it is assumed that employer contributions to the
overall program will increase from 25% to 30%, scenario #1 in Table 6-1. It is also
assumed that 50% of hotel shuttle administration is paid for by the hotels, and 50%
is part of the MTSMA general budget. Finally, it is assumed that the hotels do
receive a BAAQMD grant through the airport for CNG shuttle vehicles.
6-7
y
d
~~
C
L
~ H
V w,
O N
J ~
O ~ k
y ~ W
~w d
~O
N a`
.~
L
LL
C
s
0
N
0 o m a
~
~
O D ~ ~
(
p
N ~ M ~ ~
C7 N r ~
Q
O M
O O ~ ~
C C'7 N r
N
M N O Gp Q
L(y O r ~
/1
O C'7 N ~ ~
N
N
O
O
N
c~onc~~
O d0 Q~
T
M r r
O iD N ~
• r O ~ e
d
(''~ f~ In ~ Ln r C~'~
CO c
p
O
CO U
~
0
C
7 00 V
~ ~j
f~ C7 O C'7 M r N
N O
O
T T V
p
O r O (p ~ O a0 N ('7
~ ~
M ~ O
V
CO
('7 U
I~ N O N Ch r C
7
O O
D
~
T T
O (D 0 0 0 f~ O T .--
r~ ~ A
1
M
~
1O
~
O O (+~ IN
1 ~ N Q~ T (~ T ~
(.~ ~
(I~
T T (Y~
O CO f~ t17 O OD O (p (p
~ O CO C~ f~7 C07 ~ ~ C
C~ ~ ~ ~ O '~ ~
O T
(D N o00 r N r~ I~
cp M
C'7
T T- M
r ~ N O Q M ~ ~ O O O r r
O r ~ to ~ r ~ (h C7 (OD l~ N ~
O O C~ I~ c~ r _
O N T T L CNO ~ ~ N T H In I~
N 'd• O
~ T" N M
c o~°oQc°~i ~a r ooorn co
~n o o ca ao
G O r^ O > O O N O r O 00
O O CO r~ Cb I~ O N ~!' M
O1 ~ N r r~ ((~ ~ r CO N r~ (+~ O
r U ~ T N N
L U
N C
> -
Q O .~-
~ N ~ ~ ~ V
~ot~ao~cD ~'
o ~ ~ U
a~ co v v ~n
Q1 U CO .- N F- O
r C N r r~ l1') CJ
(C
f~ ~ ~ ~t O ~ 'ct U
O U N r~~ T
~ ~ N ^ O ~ ~ O
i
.. ~
O L ~
U ~ o v~
~ c
C C V O
7 C C U~ CO ~ C
t~ C~ p ~ i N C •~ ~
(!1 ~ •p ~ ~, ~ Q •y ~ L
~ cU d i ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~. 47 y ~ ~
0~~~ •C O (n U C 3 C ~ _C V O Q
n.ia a=cts-•~~ a~~ ~ ~•~ss Eta O
wC70~QC4 =cnUC.7~OQ>~ F-
N
W
N
Z
W
a
x
w
6-8
Cq
d
3
C
d
d
w
V
N
O
a`
N
d
V
•i
N
y
c
d ~
~ O
J
r
O
O
y
R
W
0
v
y
~U
C
CO
C
CO
L
0
N
I~ O O O N ~ ~ CO CO ~ er Cp O r r O CO V' CO O CO CO O I~ n
O C"~ N N E 000 M M C00 N N N~ ~ Cn p~ ~C j U7 N~~~ 0 O O CO
n ~? ~ ~ ~ ~ C? CO O
p ~ T T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of O ~_' to 0 CO 00 CO 1~ ~ ~ O N ~
N •- .-- ,-- M N In l!') Cn M N N ~ CM ~ (~7 M 0 CO l1~ N O
ffl ~ ~-- r' `ct to
69
O M M to O~ ~' 00 0 ~- r~ ~ CO 0 O CO N O CA
C r M M I~ M O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NO In ll) 00 CD O CO 00 M M O 0~0 7
M N N I~ ~ 0 00 M CA CO ,~ 0 C1) M CO i~
j O t~ 0 O I~ tc7 lf~ Oi Oi N N d' a0 (+~ M 0
7 0 0 0 tl0 CO 0 r CO CD 0 M I~ ~ O CO M
~ r r r M N 0 0 0 r N N N~ rn tY' CO M CO CO Cn M CO
N O N M O ~
N r- ~ ~
~ ~ r ~
M to O N CO N_ _N O r OD O O O 0 0 O CO O O 01 ~~ O r r
M M S T CD ~ 0 M M N O N N 0 A N N CO CO O ~t O
O N r In (O N N O (O f~ I~ r 0 r r~ CD cl' f~ ~f' In In M CO M
' N O O O r M CO O Q) tf~ to 01 O M
N T ~ O) M Cp (O CO O CO llO lC) COO CO r- T O N Cn O Cp 0 CO l10 l!'y CO
O M N r N N N~ O 0
N
''" ~"- M ~
~ ~
CO T ~ O M Q) O r ~ CO CO O CO N N O (O i~ t1') O et ~' O CO CO
N t1) T O ~ O~ n 0~ O tp O
O r r r M cr CO CO ~ CN7 Q0j Qpj M ~ ^ ~ ~ O CO M M CO CO M N 1~
' V M M O t1') CO CO 00 _ M 00 to M M O) 0 -~
p N O O M ~ lf) l1') Cp C00 ~ ~ (MO CEO ~ ~ CNO T 0 r CO CO 0 l[') 00 t}'
O r r N ~- r CO N Cp r N CO M
CV r r M t?
~ ~ d9
0 0 0 O~~ M A M M O N (A O O CO In O O O O r T
O 0 0 0 0 N N N O 0 Cn O tC) M M M h to x 0 0 0 cr 1~
~ M O O S O N N In ~f M M r ~}' M M 00 0 r CO O
O CO 1~ I~ O to N N M M f~ f~ I~ Op CO CO r 00 r T T T (y (p ~
O r 00 O ~ CO In 0 ~ CO ~ ~ In N O O ~ CO to CO CO CO ~ V' CD
O r N r r 00 N ~ O
N
EA ~ y r' N M
N ~
N r r~ (p l!') In l1') O O O O (O 0 CD O U CO M
O O O O O ~ M M r Cp T T O N~ ~ N '= O r C0A 0 0 0 COO 000
O 0 0 0 0 N~~ T- (O to to ~ p~ Q~ O 00 ~ O) O N O O r 0 to
T o0 r O Ch f~ I~ 00 O In In r r M M (A y 0 O ~ O O N~ Q7
Cf O M O ~ CO ~ ~ t1') CO er ~ lf) N T ~ ~ ~ T r M CO CO tt ~h N
CA ~-' N T ~ O N M Q)
~ ~" N N
~ ~ c ~»
y
O
U
U ~
N_
O ~
U o
E
c ca
y O ~ ~ ~'
~ ~ ~ O C
L -° ~ -°- aci as o ~
~ c_ '_ ~ U rn > a ~ ai
~ c y N y N N N L N [V p C~j ~ C (n V 7
~~~ >. c 0 c O ~ >+ >. U c ~ L L
~ a~ ;,mow ~a° mW ~° Cca ~w ~ ~ w ~ ~ c >, a~iQ~m o ~
z >.cc~ o ~-Q o ~~ o~ _ .c o cn ~U Q~L
j aa~~im ~U ~ ~m ~U ~~m c~°iU~tm ~U m ~ ~ ~,c ~~ a~Q ~ c
¢ W('j~JF-~OaJF-~?~JF-~fAQ~JHf- = C~C.'3~O~2mH C'3
6-9