8/12/2019 SO.CA.TA Comments on withdrawn proposal for Metro Line 91

1/1

3010 Wilshire Blvd. #362, Los Angeles, CA 90010213.388.2364

Join SO.CA.TA

SO.CA.TA

HomeAbout

SO.CA.TA

Executive

Board

Goals

Meetings

By-Laws

Statements

Public &

LegislativeAffairs

Members Only

Southern CaliforniaTransit Advocates is anon-profit organizationdedicated to thepromotion, developmentand improvement ofpublic transportation inthe Los Angelesmetropolitan area.

SO.CA.TA Comments on withdrawn proposal for Metro Line 91

Statement sent to Metro San Fernando Valley evaluating public hearing testimony for withdrawn Line 91

proposal

The Metro Connections committee of Southern California Transit Advocates has evaluated the publichearing testimony received for the Line 91 proposal, which was withdrawn by your staff as a result of that

testimony.

We conclude that the comments received were highly emotional and have little, if any, factual merit.

Specifically, we have come to the following conclusions on the four issues that testimony raised:

1. "Crescenta Valley High School will be impacted." The high school is approximately equidistant from

Pennsylvania Ave. (90) and La Crescenta Ave. (91), thus there is no compelling reason why students could

not utilize Line 90 as easily as they do Line 91; therefore, Line 90 service should be sufficient for thesestudents' needs. There is also no shortage of Beeline 3 service during school hours, as the line runs from

6:00am to 8:00pm.

2. "Rosemont Middle School will be impacted." The school is north of Foothill Blvd. and east of La

Crescenta Ave., which places it farther from Line 91 than from Beeline 3. If students from Rosemont areriding Line 91 -- which we believe unlikely -- they are walking farther to access it than they would toaccess Beeline 3. Therefore, we believe this argument is a "straw man" and completely without merit.

3. "Harmony Farms and Crescenta Valley Car Wash have employees that need Line 91." Both of thesebusinesses (located near the corner of Foothill Blvd. and La Crescenta Ave.) have predominantly

daytime-only hours of operation, well within Beeline 3's span of service. The only potential impact which

may require mitigation is late nights (after Beeline 3's span of service) or on Sundays (when Beeline 3

does not run).

4. "Two libraries along Line 91 will be impacted." Both libraries (one operated by the County, the other by

Glendale) post their hours of operation on their website. In checking same, we find that -- with theexception of the County library staying open until 8:00pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays -- both

libraries operate well within Beeline 3's span of service. Both are closed on Sundays, the one day Beeline

3 does not operate. Therefore, we find that Line 91's service to the librar ies is duplicative and can beremoved without mitigation.

In conclusion, there appears to be no compelling argument favoring continued operation of the inefficientLine 91 branch via Honolulu and La Crescenta Aves. If there is a need for late night and Sunday service to

the small segment of Foothill Blvd. between Pennsylvania and La Crescenta Aves. (and we believe that to

be only a very small probability), we would then advocate an "alternate" Line 90A alignment, similar tothe Line 56A alignment which existed prior to 1963 (operating as Line 90 until the intersection of

Montrose/La Crescenta, then deviating via the present Line 91 alignment to rejoin Line 90 at

Foothill/Pennsylvania).

On the basis of these conclusions, we urge reconsideration of the Line 91 proposal and advocate its

implementation in June 2007, concurrent with the Line 290 proposal. Since our evaluation has taken placewithin one year of the public hearing, we believe an additional comment period should not be necessary to

do so.

uthern California Transit Advocates: Committtees file:///F:/socatametro91.html

f 1 6/3/2014 4:31 PM