Summary of comments to the three Metro Service Sectors with proposed June service changes, organized by sector. Details of the proposed changes are available at the Metro website.

Metro San Fernando Valley

We agree with the proposals to serve the new transit center at Cal State Northridge. However, the extension of Line 741 to Universal City Station will result in four lines -- two local and two Rapid -- operating on Ventura Blvd. east of Tarzana, which we feel would be unnecessarily duplicative. We therefore suggest that Line 240 also be shortened to only operate on Reseda Blvd. and Line 150's service frequency on Ventura Blvd. be adjusted accordingly. We further suggest that Line 750's schedule be modified to operate only during weekday peak-hours as the extended Line 741 will be able to provide sufficient all-day Rapid service along that part of Ventura Blvd. with the highest ridership. (It should be noted that Metro staff removed the proposals involving Ventura Blvd. service on the day of the public hearing; nevertheless, we made our comment as intended for the benefit of staff if they choose to reintroduce the proposal at a later time.)

We oppose the expansion of Line 902 service after only a six-week demonstration period. Our own observations last week showed an average of nine passengers per trip arriving at North Hollywood Station and an average of ten passengers per trip leaving there for the Van Nuys corridor. As this falls short of the minimum 25% use of available seats, it is our conclusion that the service has not proven itself and that expanding the line to other dayparts is premature. We suggest that the future of Line 902 be reconsidered in six months after additional monitoring can take place.

We similarly feel it is premature to consider making permanent the deviation of Line 96 in the Silver Lake area, and we suggest continuing this on a temporary basis for an additional six months before considering its permanence.

==========

Metro San Gabriel Valley

We object to the proposal for Line 181. The streets proposed for operation have very low ridership potential, in our view, which will result in unproductive operation. In addition, we question whether some of the streets proposed are conducive to the operation of standard size transit vehicles. Finally, we find significant duplication with Lines 92, 175, and 201 along portions of the proposed route.

We also object to the proposal for Line 287. While we understand the perceived need for replacement service on 1st St. under the proposal to cancel Line 31, we believe that creating a large loop to double the route back onto itself creates the potential for passenger confusion. We suggest that the County be approached to move their El Sol Shuttle to 1st St.; in the alternative, leaving that segment unserved would not create a major impact in the corridor due to the operation of parallel service, including the Gold Line, within a short walking distance.

==========

Metro Westside/Central

We have no objection to the proposals for Lines 31 and 217, and have communicated our concerns regarding the replacement service for Line 31 to Metro San Gabriel Valley.

We support the proposal for upgrading Line 333 into Rapid Line 733, conditioned on hourly Line 33 service continuing to and from Union Station and downtown Santa Monica, serving all local stops, during hours Line 733 will not operate.