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.

SO.CA.TA comments on June 2007 Metro Service Changes

Summary of comments on proposed Metro Service Changes for June 2007, listed by sector.



METRO GATEWAY CITIES

Southern California Transit Advocates opposes the proposal for Line 60/360 and conditionally support the Line 760 proposal. We have several concerns, both operationally and safety-related. Our major concern is for the apparent lack of security at Artesia Station after dark, noting that Long Beach Transit has essentially abandoned this terminal after 8:00pm, citing safety of both passengers and operators. This also raises the questions of connectivity with Long Beach Transit; shortening Line 60 to a terminal where connections cannot be made to the abandoned segment will result in significant inconvenience for passengers. We also note that no provisions have been made for owl service to Long Beach. Our support of the Line 760 proposal is conditioned on the mitigation of these concerns.

We are also concerned that the bus terminal included in the condominium project at Flower St./Cesar Chavez Ave. will not actually be constructed, meaning that Metro will be forced to relocate. In that light – and to conform with the guidelines of Metro Connections – we propose that the north terminal of Lines 60 and 760 be relocated to Union Station, which is an existing multi-modal hub.

We oppose the proposals for Lines 65 and 254, again due to several concerns. There has been no assurance from Montebello Bus Lines that their Line 50 will be extended to Sunday operation as replacement service. We also question whether Line 254’s southern portion has sufficient ridership to warrant Sunday operation. Finally, we note a significant difference in the headways between the two lines, which raises concerns that this proposal will result in a severe reduction in service along the replaced portion of Line 65. We suggest as an alternate proposal that Line 254 be unchanged but that Line 65 be shortened to operate only to Washington Station.

We oppose the proposal for Line 265 and instead suggest that the northern terminal be relocated to Montebello/Commerce Metrolink Station via Whittier Blvd.

We oppose the proposal for Line 275, as the line provides “lifeline” service for the residents of Artesia, Cerritos, and South Whittier. Line 275 also provides connections with Norwalk Transit, Montebello Bus Lines, the South Whittier Shuttle and Whittier Transit, which provides access to Los Cerritos Center, Cerritos Auto Square, Cerritos Town Center, and the Cerritos Performing Arts Center.

We support, in part, the Line 577X proposal but suggest that the extension to Long Beach Transit Mall run as “closed door” operation (drop-off only to LBTM, pick-up only to Norwalk) in order to resolve a conflict with Long Beach Transit Line 96 (ZAP), the original operator in the area. However, we oppose ending service at 8:00pm and believe that northbound service from Cal State Long Beach should operate until 10:00pm.


METRO SAN FERNANDO VALLEY

Southern California Transit Advocates supports the proposals for Lines 90/91/290 and 92/292, although we have some reservations about the duplication of the Line 292 designator as presently used by Foothill Transit. We also urge reconsideration of the Line 91 proposal, withdrawn from the December service changes, based on our separate correspondence to staff.

We support, in part, the Line 154 proposal. It is our position that the route segment between North Hollywood Station and Burbank Metrolink should continue to operate in middays; without this service, the only link between these two hubs would be the hourly Line 183 service. We suggest that this segment be operated as a midday shortline, spaced half-hourly from the Line 183 trips on Magnolia Blvd.

We oppose the Line 155 proposal. Although this is a former segment of Line 152, it has only existed as a separate line since mid-December, and we believe further research needs to be done before proposing changes. We suggest that Line 155 operate as an interlined service with Line 154, connecting three hubs (Universal City, Burbank, and North Hollywood). We further suggest that Line 155 service be spaced half-hourly from the Line 96 trips that operate on a different alignment through the Burbank Media District.

We support the proposals for Lines 168, 183, and 239, as these will eliminate service with little or no demonstrated need, based on passenger activity. We note that Line 168 has never been a well-performing line during the more than three decades of its operation, and make the same observation about the midday and weekend Line 239 service. We further note that the portion of Line 183 proposed for cancellation was to have been eliminated when duplicative Glendale Beeline service was established, more than five years ago; in our view, all three of these moves are long overdue.

We oppose the Line 656 proposal and suggest that staff of both the San Fernando Valley and Westside/Central sectors work together to determine if interlined owl service with Line 4 is feasible. In the alternative, we believe that a timed-transfer hold between the two lines should be instituted at the Highland/Santa Monica terminal.

We also oppose the “Tri-City Transit Link Express” study line. With Metro’s present structural operating deficit, there are no non-allocated resources available for its operation, and we would oppose any reallocation of existing local and Rapid service hours to this. We further note that LADOT will be realigning its Line 549 to serve North Hollywood Station, effective February 12, and we believe that the realigned service should be studied to determine the actual need for service between North Hollywood, Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena before any further action is taken on the study line proposal.


METRO SAN GABRIEL VALLEY

Southern California Transit Advocates supports the proposal for Lines 170/287, conditioned on Line 287 being operationally split from Line 487, due to the overlong length of the newly combined service.

While we understand that the retirement of the smaller buses used to operate Line 175 makes the proposed changes in service necessary, we urge staff to work with LADOT and the Councilmember in the Highland Park area to find replacement service.

We oppose the proposal for Lines 260/361 with two specific concerns; connecting service on Long Beach Transit Line 62 ends at 7:30pm, which may result in stranding passengers, and the proposed route segment cancellation will result in a transfer for all passengers wishing to transfer to the Metro Blue Line from the Atlantic Ave. corridor. We believe that the guidelines for Metro Connections favoring service terminals at rail stations mandates that this proposal be withdrawn; at the very least, service must be continued to Atlantic Ave./Artesia Blvd.

We oppose the Line 684 proposal. The line provides service from Cal Poly Pomona to Diamond Bar and Orange County; the only other service in the Diamond Bar area is provided by OCTA, in weekday rush hours only; there are, at present, no other services between the eastern San Gabriel Valley and Orange County, other than a circuitous routing via Puente Hills Mall, using Foothill Transit service from there to La Habra to make connections with OCTA service. We offer as an alternate proposal the cancellation of Line 684, replaced by a restructured (and renumbered) Line 490, operating only between El Monte Station and Brea Mall (service to downtown Los Angeles cancelled), and Foothill Transit Line 482, which presently duplicates service between Cal Poly Pomona and Pomona Transcenter.

We oppose the proposal for Lines 686/687 due to the resulting loss of service on Arroyo Parkway. We suggest an alternate routing via Del Mar-Raymond-Arroyo-Colorado and suggest that staff work with Pasadena ARTS to either provide replacement service or assume the routes of these two lines in their entirety.

We support the Line 751 proposal, and agree that duplicative Metro Rapid service on Long Beach Blvd. is unnecessary.


METRO SOUTH BAY

Southern California Transit Advocates supports the proposal for Lines 115/625, but suggest that Line 625 be rerouted via Century Blvd., through LAX City Bus Center, and Sepulveda Blvd. We believe that this would better serve the goals of Metro Connections by having the line serve a central transfer hub. We also condition our support on the maintaining of the current service headways on these lines.

We support the proposal for Lines 119/126, but believe an alternate service provider should be found to operate the segment of Line 126 between El Camino College and Manhattan Beach.

We support the proposal for Lines 120/121, conditioned on the retention of timed transfers.

We oppose the Line 124 proposal and believe service should be instead interlined with Line 120.

We support the Line 202 proposal, conditioned on the retention of Line 55-202 owl service.

We support the Line 214 proposal, but suggest a routing via Western Ave.-120th St.-Broadway-Imperial Highway-Main St.-120th St.-Avalon Blvd.-El Segundo Blvd.-Main St. rather than the proposed route via El Segundo Blvd.-Figueroa St., which would be duplicative of Torrance Transit Route 2.

We oppose the Line 305 proposal due to several concerns. By terminating service at Pico-Rimpau Transit Center, passengers wishing to continue on the previous route to points on Sunset Blvd. or farther west would be required to transfer to Line 550, which terminates at Santa Monica Blvd. Passengers would then be required to navigate narrow sidewalks on a six-block uphill walk (which may prove impossible for seniors and disabled persons) in order to reach Sunset. We instead propose that Line 550 terminate at Pico-Rimpau Transit Center and Line 305 continue to a new Sunset Blvd./San Vicente Blvd. north terminal. This would also continue through service between South Central Los Angeles, Beverly Center, and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; our proposal would also maintain service on San Vicente Blvd. if and when Line 550 is cancelled in favor of integrated Metro Bronze Line service on the Harbor Transitway.

We support the Line 442 proposal, given the adequate replacement service, and noting that the southernmost end of the line already receives all-day service via Metro Rapid Line 740.

We oppose the Line 445/455X proposal. The proposed southern terminal for Line 455X would be at an extremely underutilized park-ride lot with limited growth potential; the line would also bypass a major hub (Artesia Transit Center), and we believe reducing Line 445 service in favor of what would, in our view, be a poor performing service is not justified. We instead suggest that the proposed reallocation of revenue service hours be used to operate a pilot express service between LAX and Westwood, similar to the Line 561 service which was cancelled in 2003. We also note that Line 445 itself would likely be restructured in favor of Metro Bronze Line service in the future, and believe that any changes in Harbor Transitway express service should be deferred until then.

We support the Line 622 proposal, based on the minimal use of this service.

We also support the Line 710 proposal, based on the operational issues in the Hancock Park area and the logical relocation of the north terminal to Wilshire/Western Station.


METRO WESTSIDE/CENTRAL

Southern California Transit Advocates supports the proposal for Lines 4/304/704 as we believe Santa Monica Blvd. is a logical corridor for the expansion of Metro Rapid service.

We oppose the proposal for Lines 10/11; specifically, we believe that the wrong branch is proposed for cancellation. Line 11, with its direct connection to the Metro Red Line at Vermont/Beverly Station, provides a greater number of options for passengers traveling to and from downtown Los Angeles. By comparison, Line 10 unnecessarily duplicates Line 26 service on Virgil Ave. without providing a rail connection. We suggest that Line 10 be discontinued, rather than Line 11.

We support the proposal for Lines 16/316 without reservations.

We oppose the proposal for Lines 20/21 on several grounds. We are concerned that Big Blue Bus Line 2 lacks the capacity to replace Line 20 on Wilshire Blvd. west of Westwood, as this is already one of BBB’s higher-ridership lines. We also note that Line 21 provides the only direct service from the Metro Purple Line to UCLA, and suggest as an alternate proposal that Line 21 be restructured to operate between Wilshire/Vermont Station and the Getty Center; this would also restore local service on Sunset Blvd. lost when Metro Rapid Line 761 was implemented in 2003.

We also question the logic of the reintroduction of the Line 20/21 proposal, since it has been rejected by the Sector Governance Council – and subsequently withdrawn – twice in the past.

We do not object to the Line 720 Rapid Express proposal, but we suggest designating the service as Line 920 and using Metro Liner buses (in the silver paint scheme) to avoid passenger confusion.