3010 Wilshire Blvd. #362, Los Angeles, CA 90010
213.388.2364

Southern California Transit Advocates is a non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion, development and improvement of public transportation in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

Comments to Foothill Transit on 2010 service change proposals

Southern California Transit Advocates wishes to submit the following comments for the record regarding the proposed changes to Foothill Transit service.

We recognize that, like virtually every public transit agency in California, Foothill Transit has been hard hit by actions of the Legislature that eliminated the State Transit Assistance fund, which is the only state funding source that can be used for transit service operations. Nevertheless, we hope that whatever changes need to be made as a result will be those which impact the fewest number of passengers.

Five of the lines in the proposed service changes -- 284, 289, 292, 851 and 855 -- have significant student ridership. We suggest that those trips be maintained, while other service can be cancelled (this position includes our supporting the alternate proposal for Line 851).

We offer an alternate proposal for Line 197, eliminating the Arrow Highway segment and realigning the remainder to both service the University of La Verne campus and provide transfer connections to Line 492 for trips further east.

Line 197 proposal

We also offer an alternate proposal for Lines 195 and 286, eliminating the local stop service along Diamond Bar Blvd. to operate as a freeway express route between Brea and Pomona, while maintaining some service to the Pomona Ranch Plaza and Phillips Ranch currently offered by Line 195.

Line 286 proposal

We suggest interlining Line 274 with the northern end of Line 272 to provide service between Rio Hondo College and Foothill/Huntington on a 60-minute headway seven days a week, maintaining a north-south route between Peck Road and Irwindale/Sunset. The route would operate from Rio Hondo College to Baldwin Park Metrolink via the Line 274 route, and then to Foothill/Huntington via the Line 272 route. We recommend that service south of Rio Hondo College be re-evaluated due to service duplication with Metro Line 270 and Norwalk Line 1.

We do not object to hourly Line 482 service west of Puente Hills Mall, but suggest that the branch between Puente Hills Mall and Pomona be extended to Valley/Azusa from Puente Hills Mall to facilitate transfers to and from Metro Line 194. We object to canceling service between the Pomona Transit Center and the Los Angeles County line, because it would provide Los Angeles County residents no service and would shift provision of transit service along Holt Ave. to Omnitrans, which does not issue transfers and accepts passes only at a very limited number of stops along the route.

We support the elimination of Silver Streak owl service, provided Line 480 owl service is restored between Holt/Indian Hill and El Monte Station, which will restore the historic span of service provided on Line 480 since Foothill Transit's inception two decades ago. Service should be scheduled based on Metro Lines 70 and 76 service to Downtown Los Angeles to facilitate transfers for affected passengers.

We oppose the Line 285 proposal, due to the lack of alternate service for affected passengers. It is our view that connectivity is more important than parochialism and that ridership across the county line, which is higher than the Foothill Transit average, supports continuation of the service.

We also oppose the Line 852 proposal, based on the above-average ridership this line experiences at present; we therefore question why it is recommended for cancellation.

We do not understand the logic used in explaining the Line 497 proposal. Aren't Chino Park-Ride and Chino Transit Center both across the county line? If one is outside Foothill Transit's service area, then both are, and both should be served.

Regarding the proposal to eliminate all express service between December 24 and December 31, we find this to be an extreme measure. While we agree that ridership is lower during the week between Christmas and New Year's Days, there are still those who are at work during that week and they are dependent on the express lines for their commute. We suggest that service levels be adjusted for the lower ridership, but that complete suspension of service during that week is not warranted.

We either support, or have no objection to, the proposed changes to Lines 184, 269, 280, 281, 493, 494, 699, and 853. We suggest that, if the section north of Foothill Blvd. on Line 280 is canceled, it be the first candidate considered for restoration in the future, due to the demographics of its ridership and for connections to the future Azusa Gold Line Station.

We suggest that Line 178 serve a stop at Pacific/Downing, adjacent to the Baldwin Park Metrolink Station parking lot, rather than a time-consuming deviation to the station itself; we suggest this be the case during all hours of operation. We have no objection to the reroute within Baldwin Park.

We agree with the Line 185 proposal on weekends, but suggest that the three hour midday period proposed for suspension on weekdays is too short -- and therefore, too confusing for passengers to understand -- to implement.

We support the shortlining of some Line 498 trips, provided a minimum 20-minute headway is maintained.