Summary of Public Hearing Comments
June 28, 2009 Service Change Proposals
(Hearing held February 4, 2009)
Approximately 25 individuals attended the February 4, 2009 public hearing held in Van Nuys. Eight of those individuals provided verbal testimony and 10 written testimonies were received via letters, facsimiles and emails by February 14, the close of the public record. Respondents included the City of Burbank and the Southern California Transit Advocates.
The seventeen respondents provided a total of 29 comments on public hearing and other proposals. Approximately 38% (11 comments) supported, 38% (11 comments) opposed and 7% (2 comments) suggested modifications to the service change proposals. The remaining 17% (5 comments) were comments pertaining to other subjects.
The eleven comments received opposing the public hearing proposals included the following:
• 1-Respondent opposed shortening Line 94 in Sun Valley due to transfers;
• 6-Respondents opposed canceling Line 724;
• 4-Respondents opposed rerouting Line 794 from Brand Boulevard to San Fernando Road.
Both the City of Burbank and the Southern California Transit Advocates supported all of the proposals.
Detailed Comments (with staff responses, as applicable)
City of Burbank supports all changes, particularly extending Line 794 to Sylmar since it restores former Line 394 service along the San Fernando Road corridor. Frequent bus service needed to serve transit dependent population of northeast San Fernando Valley, employment centers in Burbank and Downtown Los Angeles, Bob Hope Airport with 1,400 workers and 5 million annual passengers and future bus transfer facility in Golden State area.
Southern California Transit Advocates supports all proposals since it agrees with position at February 2008 public hearing. Urges that Line 794 provide weekend service to match former Line 394 service. Notes that "blind adherence to the 2001 Metro Rapid implementation plan, demanded by Metro’s lawyers, resulted in the misconfiguration of service in a highly transit-dependent area."
Line 94 too long and duplicates coverage of Line 224 from Sun Valley to Sylmar.
Line from downtown needs to operate to Olive View Medical Center and provide service 24-7. Too many people have to transfer to get to Olive View. (The route of Line 94 to Olive View Medical Center was shortened to improve on-time performance in accordance with Metro Connections guidelines.)
Cancel Line 224 service north of Sylmar Metrolink and replace with new Line 694, operating via Olive View Medical Center, Roxford Street, San Fernando Road, Maclay Avenue, 7th Street/Borden Avenue, Polk Street, Foothill Boulevard and Sayre Street to Mission College. Line 694 also replaces part of Line 234. (The proposed route is too complex and would increase transfers significantly.)
Line 724 has shown greater improvement over Line 794; Extend route to Olive View and Universal City Station and add stop in Sun Valley for transfer between Lines 94 and 794. (The Olive View and Universal segments of Line 224 have lower ridership levels than the existing route and do not warrant rapid bus service. The northbound transfer stop in Sun Valley could not be implemented since it did not meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for establishing a new bus stop.)
Canceling Line 724 without alternative is unacceptable. (Alternate service is available on Line 224.)
Line 724 is a new rapid and should be kept for at least another year or two. (Reallocating resources from cancelled Line 724 to Line 224 will allow service levels to be improved along the corridor.)
Line 724 heavily used. Could use weekend service. Both local/rapid standing-room only; need more buses; has more wheelchair patrons than usual; crowded buses has led to tension. Line 224 buses no shows; more buses on Line 224; Expand Line 724 service.
Sylmar Station is an easy transfer location; Many locations do not have benches and shade so 50-60" transfer in hot sun. (Bus shelters are responsibility of the local jurisdiction. Due to limited resources and other considerations, it is not possible to provide shelters and benches at all bus stop locations.)
Line 794 extension is wise but service levels should be increased.
No stop in Glendale so Line 94 packed until you get into Burbank. Add one or two stops in Glendale; Stops at 1st/Olive, San Fernando/Olive then it goes to Alameda; eliminate 1st/Olive stop and add one in Glendale to decrease overflow on Line 94.
Oppose Line 794 reroute to San Fernando Road; service on Brand saved a lot of time; only line that goes fast to Glendale (Americana, Galleria); limits access for those who work and live in Glendale; could risk losing ridership to slower lines. Doesn't make sense for commuters who work and shop in Glendale. Brand is major arterial for business. (There are not enough patrons using the stops along Brand Boulevard to warrant maintaining rapid bus service along this route segment. In addition, the City of Glendale stated at the February 2008 public hearing that they will be able to implement signal priority along San Fernando Road, which is not available on Brand Boulevard.)
The proposed extension is too long. Shorten route in Sun Valley to operate the same route as Line 94.
(Comments were also received regarding suggested changes to Lines 240 and 741, and restructuring suggestions for Lines 90, 91, 156/656, 169, 183, 218, 233, 234, 290, 603. A comment regarding operational issues on Lines 2 and 534 was referred to the Westside/Central sector, and a comment regarding bus bunching on Line 761 was referred to sector supervision.)
