Summary of comments to all five Metro Service Sectors regarding the proposed June service changes, organized by sector.

Metro Gateway Cities

We do not object to the proposals for Lines 102, 105, 127, 265, 350-753, and 705.

We also do not object to the proposals for Lines 26-51 and 53, but we are concerned that the extension of Line 53 to Imperial/Wilmington Station may require additional resources; we therefore wonder why this is being proposed, and suggest that only Line 753 operate on that alignment, with Line 53 continuing to operate to Avalon Green Line Station.

We strongly object to the proposal regarding owl service on Line 60. Owl service has always been a “lifeline” service for those who are both transit-dependent and forced by their economic circumstances to work hours that are not otherwise conducive to using public transportation. We are especially concerned that neither Long Beach Transit nor Metro Blue Line service is available during this time period as a replacement. In that light, we wonder if the Orange County Transportation Authority has been advised and allowed to comment, since their Line 60 would be left without any connections in Long Beach overnight if this proposal was to be implemented.

As a side note, we suggest that Line 60’s north terminal be relocated to its original location at Union Station, especially during owl periods.

We support the Line 62 proposal, on the condition of the location of the new south terminal at the Los Cerritos Center. Operating to this hub would be consistent with the goals of Metro Connections as we understand them, and is preferable to establishing a turnaround loop and layover at Pioneer Blvd./Rosecrans Ave.

We oppose the proposal for Line 121 and instead suggest that service levels on Sunday be adjusted to a 60-minute headway.

We also oppose the proposal for Line 254 and instead suggest that it be partially merged with Line 665, creating a new line operating between Cal State University Los Angeles and Firestone Blue Line Station, with the remaining route segments of both lines canceled.

Similarly, we oppose the proposal for Line 612 and suggest a bi-directional, non-loop route be operated on Sunday between Santa Fe Ave./Palm Pl. and Long Beach Green Line Station, via the Florence Ave.-Otis St. (north and east portion of the loop) routing. We believe this would allow a significant savings of resources while retaining the portion of the route which is in the most need of continued Sunday service.

==========

Metro San Fernando Valley

We do not object to the proposals for Lines 156, 168, and 183.

We also do not specifically object to the proposal for Line 634, although we question the claim of “service duplication” as the only other service to Mission College is Line 234, which does not operate on Hubbard St. nor connect with the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station; we suggest that the extension of service presently terminating there be considered as a replacement.

We support the proposal for Line 163-222, conditioned on night service being interlined at Sun Valley.

We object to all of the proposed options for Lines 94-394, 224, and 724-794. It is our position that the only reasonable Metro Rapid service for the San Fernando Rd. must be a direct replacement of Line 394, and we specifically point out that the documentation for the public hearing on the December, 2006 service changes specifically referred to the conversion of Line 394 to Line 794 in the future. While we realize that the proposals are based upon the 2001 Metro Rapid implementation plan which was submitted to Judge Hatter as Metro’s commitment to the consent decree’s New Service Plan, we believe that cannot be used as an excuse for the misconfiguration of service in a highly transit-dependent corridor where existing limited-stop service constitutes fully half of the service.

We also believe San Fernando Rd. is a poor choice of corridors for termination at Union Station, since the aforementioned transit-dependent passengers in that corridor make connections along Hill St. to other lines. We instead suggest that Lines 90-91, which duplicate service along the southern portion of Line 94, be reconfigured as follows:

· Extend Line 290 via the Line 90 route to Glendale Ave./San Fernando Rd., then continue to a new south terminal at Glendale Transportation Center.

· Operate Line 91 as Line 291 between its present north terminal in Sunland and Glendale College, continuing along the alignment of (and replacement for) Line 685.

We believe this will not only achieve the apparent goal of removing some San Fernando Valley service from Hill St., but also result in resource economies, and will not severely inconvenience passengers, as they would be able to transfer between Lines 290-291 and the faster Line 794 service to downtown Los Angeles.

In the same light, we object to the proposal reconfiguring Line 92 to terminate at Union Station. This is the only service approaching downtown Los Angeles from the Echo Park area and its passengers make connections to other lines that intersect along Spring and Main Sts.

Finally, we oppose the proposals for Lines 96, 154, 155, and 237, and instead support alternative proposals made available to us. Our support for these proposals are as outlined in the enclosures. We additionally object to the Line 237 proposal based upon the line interconnecting of the Metro Orange Line with the LAX FlyAway service at Woodley Ave./Saticoy St.

(The alternate proposals referenced above may be downloaded, in Word format, from the Transit Insider website:)
http://www.transit-insider.org/documents/96-154-155.doc
http://www.transit-insider.org/documents/237.doc

==========

Metro San Gabriel Valley

We do not object to the proposals for Lines 361-762, 620, and 770.

We suggest that Line 175 continue to operate its “school tripper” service, but otherwise support the proposal as the line appears to have little ridership outside of those trippers, mostly due to its short length, odd historic configuration, and proximity to more frequent service in Hollywood.

We oppose the proposal for Line 201; the cutback at Wilshire/Beverly Station provides no operational savings, and creates a new issue regarding layover and turnaround loop routing. We further believe cancellation of all weekend service is excessive and suggest canceling only Sunday service and operating a shorter Saturday span of service (eliminating the present first and last trips).

While we do not specifically oppose the Line 177 proposal, we realize that the transfer of the westernmost segment to Glendale Beeline in 2000, and the subsequent cancellation east of Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line Station in 2005 (after it became evident that Foothill Transit would not agree to operate replacement service between Pasadena and Duarte), has left the remaining service difficult to operate effectively within Metro’s service warrants. We therefore suggest that the remaining portion of Line 177 be operated by ARTS, and we suggest continuing to operate service until a transfer to that agency can be negotiated.

Similarly, we oppose the proposal for Line 256 and suggest that the Pasadena-Altadena route segment be operated by ARTS and remedial steps be taken on the remainder of the line.

Finally, we support the proposal for Line 258, conditioned on a realignment of the south terminal to Lakewood Green Line Station via Gardendale St.

==========

Metro South Bay

We do not object to the proposals for Lines 110, 126, 202, 608, and 626, noting, in the case of Line 608, that our own observations confirm a lack of ridership.

We specifically support the proposals for Lines 711, 315-715, and 940. Regarding the latter, we would like an update on the status of Line 442 in this service change program, given that the Metro Board of Directors has only funded its continued operation through June.

We take no position on the proposal for Line 209, but suggest that this proposal may be too “political” to be considered for implementation, especially given the past involvement of the Bus Riders Union when changes were proposed (and, indeed, implemented) for this line.

We similarly take no official position on the proposal for Line 124, but express concern for the need to maintain service area coverage, specifically in light of the proposals for Lines 120 and 126.

We also take no position on the Line 211-215 proposal.

We believe that the proposals for Lines 444, 445, and 450X should be withdrawn until a plan for implementation of the Metro Bronze Line is put forward for public comment.

We have objections, comments, and/or alternate suggestions for the remaining proposals, as follows:

We object to the proposal for Lines 108-358, as the line is necessary for many employed in the Marina Del Rey area. We instead suggest the cancellation of weekend service and readjustment of service levels west of Fox Hills Mall to a 60-minute headway.

We suggest, in light of the vague language used in the Line 115 proposal, that service levels be reduced to no less than a 20-minute headway in base periods.

We object to the proposal for Line 120, due to the one-mile spacing to Line 117 replacement service along some route segments. We also believe the long distances between Metro Green Line stations disqualifies it as a valid replacement. We instead suggest retaining both Saturday and Sunday service on Line 120 and readjust same to a 60-minute headway.

Finally, we support the Line 439 proposal, conditioned on Line 534 being re-extended to downtown Los Angeles on its previous alignment, as Line 434. We also suggest that consideration be given to extending Line 35 over the route of Line 439 to Fox Hills Mall as a replacement service; we believe the short length of Line 35 makes it an ideal candidate for such a move.

==========

Metro Westside/Central

Southern California Transit Advocates hereby submits the following positions on proposed service changes to take effect in June, 2008 or later:

We do not object to the proposals for Lines 330-730.

We also do not object to the proposal for Line 220, but suggest that the option of transferring service to Culver CityBus be completely explored before the line is canceled outright.

We strongly object to the proposals regarding owl service on Lines 10, 14, 37, and 38. Owl service has always been a “lifeline” service for those who are both transit-dependent and forced by their economic circumstances to work hours that are not otherwise conducive to using public transportation. We are especially concerned about the large service gaps that would result between Santa Monica Blvd. and 6th St., and between Venice Blvd. and Martin Luther King Jr. Dr.

Further, we remind you of the huge political problem that was caused when owl service on Lines 4 and 20 were “combined” several years ago, resulting in service temporarily being lost on Wilshire Blvd. west of Westwood. We do not believe Metro should go down that path a second time.

We therefore instead suggest that Lines 10 and 14 operate a combined owl service by operating a loop of both lines between Vermont/Beverly and Division 7 and via the Beverly Blvd. route to downtown Los Angeles.

We oppose any changes to Lines 37 and 38.

Presuming that these proposals are driven by Metro’s present operating deficit, we suggest that an equivalent amount of savings can be achieved by the following actions:

· A 10% reduction in all Tier 1 service
· Cancellation of Line 920
· Truncating Line 33 at the Abbot/Kinney traffic circle with connections to Big Blue Bus Line 1 (which Line 33 duplicates from that point to the present terminal in Santa Monica)

We urge you to consider these as alternatives to the cancellation of the lifeline owl services in your sector.