Comments on: Metro Proposes More Changes to Bus Routes and Schedules

By: Wad

Wad — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:11:24 +0000

Calwatch, about two weeks ago the Daily Breeze ran a story of Price's lawsuit against the city of Redondo Beach. She had claimed that after she revealed Prop. A and C money was misspent on a city hall expansion, the city managers had begun to harass her.

By: calwatch

calwatch — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:33:02 +0000

Beach Cities Transit has stopped expanding ever since Terisa Price skipped town after her divorce, and with the MTA starting an audit of her allegations that Proposition A and C money was incorrectly spent, the remaining staff there have got to be gun shy. Essentially, she was the agency.

By: Kymberleigh Richards

Kymberleigh Richards — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:02:08 +0000

@ Wad: Glendale doesn't object to the 780 on Broadway. But they have issues regarding Brand Blvd., which is their highest traffic corridor. (They aren't even happy about local Line 92 being there; if they had their way, only Glendale Beeline buses would operate on Brand.)

While I understand your and Janna's position about the Galleria and other downtown Glendale destinations, the 794 has not attracted enough ridership from there to offset the operational problem that the deviation has caused. This has actually cost Metro money it hadn't budgeted, as local 94 service had to be increased to accommodate the passengers who now prefer it to the Rapid.

To bring up a bit of history that likely only you and I will remember, the implementation of the 794 (and its sister line 724) makes the implementation of 522 in 1995 look like brilliance.

By: Wad

Wad — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:30:04 +0000

Kym, does this mean Glendale will also force 780 to reroute? Interestingly, 780 is at its fastest in Glendale.

As for Bzcat, Metro wants to unload these lines because, while they may be full, they don't meet the performance target.

Line 124 can be canceled if Metro coordinates with Torrance to reroute its Line 2 to run along El Segundo, instead of turning on Crenshaw and duplicating much of Metro Line 210.

Anything west of the Green Line stations could plausibly be handled by Beach Cities Transit.

As for Line 126, Gardena's buses provide service nearby.

By: Kymberleigh Richards

Kymberleigh Richards — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:07:38 +0000

@ Janna: Unfortunately, that deviation to serve downtown Glendale makes the Rapid 794 slower (!) than the local 94 between downtown Los Angeles and Burbank.

According to the reports given at the governance council meetings over the past few months, that slowness has made 794 one of the worst-performing lines in the entire Metro system, especially when compared to the performance of the previous Line 394 limited-stop service it replaced.

Also, the city of Glendale doesn't want the Rapid in downtown, and only went along with this to comply with the federal court order (which has now expired).

Just a little background as to why this proposal has come forward.

By: bzcat

bzcat — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:07:40 +0000

Metro keep threatening to cancel 124, 125, and 126 west of Green Line but every time I see one of those bus, it is always full of people trying to get to Green Line station from El Segundo and Manhattan Beach. I don't get why these lines are even open to discussion as candidate for reduced/shorten/cancel.

By: timur

timur — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:26:04 +0000

Echoing Jarret's comment, I'll miss the 714, but it doesn't really make all that much sense. The times I have ridden it from east to west, I've been struck by how little traffic it carries. And while it's been great to ride west to east, I'm not sure that it added significantly to the ease of that commute. I'd almost rather that they took the buses from the 714 and started extending the hours of the 920, though that's mostly unfounded selfishness. I wish I could offer more comments, but I'm spending most of my time on the bus between Wilshire and Beverly and can't speak to much more.

By: Jarrett

Jarrett — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:52:42 +0000

Cutting back the weakest Metro Rapids makes sense, because it allows MTA to maintain the clear definition of the brand. LA transit history is full of cases where a new product has been introduced aimed at dense areas, but then everyone has wanted one, and before long it has been extended to areas that can't really support it. This is exactly what happened with DASH, and now it's happening with the Rapid.

I feel your pain about Beverly, but Metro Rapid is really at its best serving much longer corridors.

By: Wad

Wad — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:36:55 +0000

Anonymouse, Metro should have connecting service to the Gold Line ready as soon as the train starts. Not only that, but I think that north-south service needs to be beefed up seriously on streets other than Soto and Atlantic.

On MetroRider I will be posting my opinions on the proposed service changes, plus some of my own suggestions for bus service improvements specific to the Eastside Gold Line extension in a segment called Open Source Transit.

Janna, I agree with you about keeping the service along Brand. The Galleria is the busiest trip generator in Glendale for both employees and shoppers. Also, San Fernando Road may be a faster, more direct trip but lacks a major bus stop between the Glendale and Burbank Metrolink stations.

By: Janna

Janna — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:58:42 +0000

I already e-mailed them, objecting to the re-route of line 794 from Brand Blvd. to San Fernando Rd., leaving downtown Glendale (and the Americana and Glendale Galleria) without a Rapid connection to Burbank or downtown...

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:58:54 +0000

The very first thing thats strikes me about these changes is that they're partially undoing an earlier round of changes, and partly some changes that they keep proposing over and over. And I think it's a bit premature to change service for the Gold Line extension, I would much rather wait to see how the ridership patterns shake out after the opening, although minor reroutes to improve connections is a good idea.