<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Westside Rejects Some Service Cuts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/03/13/westside-rejects-some-service-cuts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/03/13/westside-rejects-some-service-cuts/</link>
	<description>Covering Los Angeles&#039;s livable streets movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kymberleigh Richards</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/03/13/westside-rejects-some-service-cuts/comment-page-1/#comment-421</link>
		<dc:creator>Kymberleigh Richards</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/03/13/westside-rejects-some-service-cuts/#comment-421</guid>
		<description>Too bad you didn&#039;t report on the San Fernando Valley sector council meeting, where after a lot of discussion no lines were canceled.

The real problem, though, is that the Westside/Central council does not have the final say on those owl service lines, because they are designated &quot;tier 1&quot; and the council vote is only advisory to the Metro Board of Directors, which will probably approve the staff report anyway.  Which makes the vote on Line 14 as much of a symbolic gesture as was Jerard and Peter voting against the rest of the cuts.

There was a way to preserve that service, if Westside/Central sector staff had followed the lead of San Fernando Valley.  The way SFV managed to avoid canceling lines was to widen the frequency of service on some high-service lines by two to four minutes, thus saving one bus all day which will be transferred to the lines that were in danger of being eliminated.  It would take very little in the way of such &quot;headway widening&quot; to keep the owl service.  Why this approach was not taken, I do not know, but I hope someone on that council will ask.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Too bad you didn&#8217;t report on the San Fernando Valley sector council meeting, where after a lot of discussion no lines were canceled.</p>
<p>The real problem, though, is that the Westside/Central council does not have the final say on those owl service lines, because they are designated &#8220;tier 1&#8243; and the council vote is only advisory to the Metro Board of Directors, which will probably approve the staff report anyway.  Which makes the vote on Line 14 as much of a symbolic gesture as was Jerard and Peter voting against the rest of the cuts.</p>
<p>There was a way to preserve that service, if Westside/Central sector staff had followed the lead of San Fernando Valley.  The way SFV managed to avoid canceling lines was to widen the frequency of service on some high-service lines by two to four minutes, thus saving one bus all day which will be transferred to the lines that were in danger of being eliminated.  It would take very little in the way of such &#8220;headway widening&#8221; to keep the owl service.  Why this approach was not taken, I do not know, but I hope someone on that council will ask.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

