|
|
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.
|
|
SO.CA.TA Statements on Proposed December 2007 Metro Service Changes
Summary of comments on the proposed December 16, 2007 service changes, listed by sector.
Metro Gateway Cities
We do not object to the Line 26 proposal, provided LADOT will provide a span of service that continues into the late evening.
After considerable discussion in an attempt to create suggested alternatives, we conclude that the Line 51/52/352 and the related Line 45/46/S-3 proposal are completely unworkable, due to span of service issues, connectivity, and owl service in the affected area. We therefore oppose both.
We do, however, suggest that establishing service connections to and from Line 45-46 at Mission Blvd. be investigated.
We oppose the Line 128 proposal. The proposed rerouting to Cerritos Towne Center is, in our view, less desirable than the present routing to La Mirada Town Center. We suggest that the present route be retained and that an extension to the new Metrolink station in Buena Park be considered instead.
We also have concerns about the Line 270 proposal and suggest that insufficient information has been provided as to the need for this extensive rerouting. We therefore request this proposal be held back until a more complete report is made available.
Regarding the multiple realignments proposed for Line 460: We support removal from the I-5 freeway during the current widening project but suggest that, once the widening is completed, consideration be given to restoring the freeway alignment. However, we strongly oppose realignment to no longer serve the Fullerton Park-Ride lot. This is the major transit hub in northwest Orange County, served by nine OCTA routes, and bypassing it runs counter to the stated “Metro Connections” aim of serving transit hubs. We instead suggest routing Line 460 via Carmenita Rd.-Artesia Blvd.-Beach Blvd.
We support the study lines S-1 and S-2 but suggest that they would be best implemented as a combined extension of Line 252 between Monterey Hills and Heritage Square Station.
Metro San Gabriel Valley
We do not object to the majority of the proposals, but have specific comments related to some of them.
We suggest that the new Line 28 east terminal be located at the 7th/Maple lot.
Our support for the Line 70 proposal is based upon a presumption that all Line 71 stops – including those inside the County-USC Medical Center grounds – will continue to be serviced. We fear those stops would be replaced by on-street stops on Marengo Ave. adjacent to the facility, which we would find unacceptable. We would not object to the Line 71 designation being retained to identify trips that would continue to serve stops on the Medical Center grounds but otherwise operate on the Line 70 routing.
We also suggest that the proposed combination of Lines 68 and 84 utilize a direct routing via Cesar E. Chavez Blvd. rather than the proposed interline point of Broadway & 1st St.; the deviation is, in our view, unnecessary given existing Metro Rapid, Metro Local, Metro Rail, and DASH service between the Union Station hub served by the interlined service and downtown Los Angeles.
However, we condition this support for the Line 68-84 proposal on the maintenance of a minimum base headway of 15 minutes across the new interlined alignment.
We support the extension of Line 252 but suggest operating via the combined routing of study lines S-1 (between Lincoln Heights and Heritage Square Station) and S-2 (between Lincoln Heights and Monterey Hills); we feel a single extension to this relatively short line is preferable to creating two even shorter lines as shuttle service.
We also commend Metro San Gabriel Valley both for the proposed implementation of two new Metro Rapid lines (Lines 762 and 770) and for the proposed extension of weekend service on Metro Rapid Line 780, which is long overdue. We support the alternate proposal for Line 361 if Metro Rapid Line 762 is not implemented.
Metro Westside/Central
We do not specifically object to the proposals, but have specific comments related to the establishment of new terminals for Lines 28, 38 and 728.
We suggest that the new east terminal for Line 28 and Rapid Line 728 be located at the 7th/Maple lot. We further suggest that the new Line 38 terminal be located at the Los Angeles Convention Center.
|
|
