|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 5, 2011 11:38:45 GMT -8
Over in my thread about where to built HRT in Los Angeles in the Red/Purple Line forum, discussion also was made on the bus system and how despite the cheapness of BRT and dedicated bus lanes, they still will not entice the average commuter. Then, rayinla posted this response about a recent bus experience: The other night I decided to catch a bus. The scheduled coach did not arrive, nor did the next coach, but three Rapids did pass. "Ew, bus" never occurred to me. Nor did I wonder, "If only we had a train!" "Won't be fooled again"was more like it. It wasn't a matter that the bus is slow - it never arrived, and I was made to watch as I was passed up three (effectively five) times. Putting lipstick on a pig with pre-boarding, canopies, and "Maybe Next Bus"; (been there, done that) signs, and proclaiming a mythical/statistical 20% trip improvement time will not convert non-riders. Punishing drivers with $5/gallon gas won't either. If you want to entice new ridership on a bus route, we need to address the systemic failures it currently embodies, not shrug, apologize, and quote stats. In my book, that means a bus has its own lane 24x7, along with signal pre-emption, exempted from ADA*/wheelchair dwell time, 2-5 minute headways with no schedule, and electric drive, so cross-town speeds of 20mph+ are the norm for *local* service. Make those buses and bus stops clean, safe, and reliable at all hours - and THEN you'll see people choose to ride. That last paragraph, is something I agree with 100%. The question now would be - where could you implement that kind of service in L.A. presently? The first place that comes to mind is Venice since it’s so wide for the majority of its length and there seems to be no immediate plans to build rail there. And even with all the amenities rayinla listed implemented, it would still probably be cheaper than building HRT or even light-rail. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 5, 2011 12:07:13 GMT -8
Reading over, this should probably be in the Rapid Bus Forum. If anyone out there can move the thread, it would be much appreciated!
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 5, 2011 19:27:10 GMT -8
Off the top of my head spaces in Los Angeles that have the ridership and space to build such a system are of course the corridors that Pacific Electric had dual tracks in the street median such as Van Nuys Blvd, Crenshaw Blvd, and Vermont (south of Gage St). But these respective areas are already being studied for light rail (Crenshaw) and who knows exactly what yet (Van Nuys Blvd and light rail). That leaves Vermont and it only widens up far south of the super high density urban stretches. I'd support a busway on Vermont, or Wilshire for that matter, and permanently, but it wouldn't be sacrificing a traffic lane, it would be getting rid of that dangerous street parking. Who's idea was it to use increasingly valuable vehicular travel space for storage? Before I go any further off on a tangent I think it could work on Vermont or Wilshire, definitely on Van Nuys Blvd as a stop gap, definitely on Venice given the pretext of eliminating most of if not all street parking. Venice probably doesn't matter because no one wants to park on Venice Blvd anyway unless you're near Downtown, Culver City, or Venice Beach and it's still plenty wide.
That's my 2¢...
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 5, 2011 20:16:59 GMT -8
Who's idea was it to use increasingly valuable vehicular travel space for storage? You want parking for pedestrian safety. I live off a street that has anti-gridlock zoning (i.e. no stopping between 7 - 9 am and 4 - 7 pm) and during those times, the street is a freeway with cars zooming at 40 mph at curbside (downtown streets, so that's fast). Wheras, when car parking is in place, the zooming is in the middle and cars naturally decrease to 30 - 35 mph. Also, riding my bike in a parked car lane feels safer (I get the whole lane to myself) unlike when a lane is taken over for cars to move at 40 - 50 mph, then safety is gone. I fully support street parking, but not off-street parking. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 6, 2011 0:27:03 GMT -8
This was my idea for phasing in bus lanes on major corridors: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=209582850025375035802.00049aedcd662f11a5d79&z=10I would start with Wilshire (currently planned) and the Silver Line route downtown (Grand and Olive), plus 4th and 5th downtown (the route of the 720). Next phase: Broadway, Hill, and 7th in Downtown LA, and Venice, Van Nuys (already in planning), and Vermont. These are the busiest bus routes, besides Wilshire. The third phase would add Santa Monica Blvd, Hollywood Blvd, Sepulveda, Ventura, Whittier, Cesar Chavez, and Pacific/Long Beach Blvd (And Anaheim in Long Beach as well) Later, we could add the rest of the busiest Rapid bus routes, including Pico, Broadway (south of downtown), Soto, Florence, Western, Fairfax, Beverly, San Fernando, Lankershim, Garvey, Lincoln, and 7th street in Long Beach. Someday, our current 7-lane "arterial" streets, which currently have 5 car lanes and 2 parking lanes, may have bike lanes, bus lanes, and just one car lane in each direction and parking on one side. Map: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=209582850025375035802.00049aedcd662f11a5d79&ll=33.965003,-118.427124&spn=0.623015,1.017609&z=10 In the future, some routes (like Van Nuys and Venice) should be replaced by light rail instead of rapid bus, when we have the extra cash. But we can get bus lanes NOW! |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 6, 2011 10:03:21 GMT -8
I'm most familiar with Westside so I would say that these streets NEED bus lanes:
Wilshire (from Downtown Santa Monica to Downtown LA)
Santa Monica (from Downtown Santa Monica to Beverly Hills)
Venice (from Lincoln to Downtown LA)
Pico (from Barrington to Rimpau)
Lincoln (from Jefferson to Pico)
Sepulveda (from Santa Monica to Washington)
Westwood (from Pico to UCLA)
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 6, 2011 10:15:02 GMT -8
Who's idea was it to use increasingly valuable vehicular travel space for storage? You want parking for pedestrian safety. I live off a street that has anti-gridlock zoning (i.e. no stopping between 7 - 9 am and 4 - 7 pm) and during those times, the street is a freeway with cars zooming at 40 mph at curbside (downtown streets, so that's fast). Wheras, when car parking is in place, the zooming is in the middle and cars naturally decrease to 30 - 35 mph. Also, riding my bike in a parked car lane feels safer (I get the whole lane to myself) unlike when a lane is taken over for cars to move at 40 - 50 mph, then safety is gone. I fully support street parking, but not off-street parking. I bike too and I feel a much more comfortable on a dedicated pathway away from parallel parkers, doors opening, and anything else that might pop out of there. The notion of street parking especially on major thoroughfares seems goofy with near-highway speed automobiles and buses dodging parallel parking cars and slow cars circling to find parking. Also I happen to find that moving some more slow buses reliably is probably the greater good than providing maybe a dozen parking spaces on a block. Seems to work for low speed side streets but not arterial roads that are apparently supplementing the freeway system. Better for transit mobility, sorry street parkers. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 6, 2011 11:26:59 GMT -8
I bike too and I feel a much more comfortable on a dedicated pathway away from parallel parkers, doors opening, and anything else that might pop out of there. The notion of street parking especially on major thoroughfares seems goofy with near-highway speed automobiles and buses dodging parallel parking cars and slow cars circling to find parking. Also I happen to find that moving some more slow buses reliably is probably the greater good than providing maybe a dozen parking spaces on a block. Seems to work for low speed side streets but not arterial roads that are apparently supplementing the freeway system. Better for transit mobility, sorry street parkers. We would all feel much safer on dedicated bike paths away from cars, but we have to look at reality. Only the Orange Line and Long Beach (3rd and Broadway) have true bike paths that are not near riverbeds or oceans. However, I challenge you to a ride a bike on Pico boulevard when anti-gridlock zoning is enforced and see if you feel safe in the right lane. Compare that to when Pico boulevard has street parking and riding in the right lane is safe because cars will not use that as a speeding lane because there will be parked cars. It makes a ton of difference. Also, it's well known that street parking is very prevalent in urban areas so cars do slow down and its safer to walk the streets and quieter sitting at outdoor cafes. Compare sitting at Panini cafe on 9th street/Hope during gridlock and anti-gridlock, you'll notice the much calmer street when street parking is enforced. In suburban or exburban communities with no street facing retail, then a car speed lane is okay. Another benefit of street parking is that it cuts down the need for significant off-street parking, which, in turn, gives greater demand and convenience to driving. Parking garages are the prime reason people drive...it's too convenient and plentiful. Without a large dedicated parking garage, more people will look for other options to travel. |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 6, 2011 14:51:26 GMT -8
We would all feel much safer on dedicated bike paths away from cars, but we have to look at reality. Only the Orange Line and Long Beach (3rd and Broadway) have true bike paths that are not near riverbeds or oceans. I realize this is off-topic, but I happen to think that the best use of bicycle dollars would be to create many more miles of those river and ocean paths. Just my 2-cents. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 6, 2011 15:42:56 GMT -8
I realize this is off-topic, but I happen to think that the best use of bicycle dollars would be to create many more miles of those river and ocean paths. Just my 2-cents. Agreed. But the choice of 3 lanes of cars going one-way on a street or 2 lanes with 1 parked car is the question/issue, not the discussion of bike lanes. We all want more bike lanes. Heck, I rode the LB new bikes lanes this weekend........absolutely phenomenal. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 9, 2011 17:04:19 GMT -8
Just thought I'd throw in my sketch of where BRT style bus corridors should go. It mostly considers downtown and the Westside because, well, that's what I know.  |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on May 18, 2011 1:43:25 GMT -8
Thanks, carter. I like that map. I read through a report from the Brooking Institute that proves Metro is running a good system service coverage-wise, but the trip times need to improve, and namely express buses came up. Metro is at a deficit of express bus service and I think some busways is a heck of a way to kick it off. It could be the true "Rapid" we've been looking for at a price that can't be argued with.
Also wouldn't hurt to find some creative way to flatten out the freeway user fees passed on to riders on the Harbor Transitway as zone fares, Metro as a regional operator doesn't collect these anywhere else so why do it on the transitway?
In other news--
I noticed for the first time ever last night that I stepped on a 733 at Union Station at 10:30pm like I always do but it had been marked an Express, and I think they just fed the operator hot sauce because he made all of the stops and I made it home to Venice/Cadillac in something like under 25 minutes. That bus was sounding like it was on the Orange Line busway it was going so fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Aug 1, 2011 12:47:24 GMT -8
Hello to everyone I have been a frequent reader of the Transit Coalition, first time poster. So I was reading the Metro Board Agenda and I came upon a motion by Mayor Villaraigosa which attempts to shield Rapid Lines and other Heavily Used Bus Routes from any type of Modifications in fiscal year 2012. One thing that caught my attention was Item 6 of the motion which requires the CEO to study and implement 5 BRT style corridors across the county. I thought this would be a good place to start discussion on selecting routes that would improve mobility for the county as a whole while taking in to account the capacity constraints of this type of service service I linked the document for reference www.metro.net/board/Items/2011/08_August/20110804RBMItem62.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 1, 2011 15:44:03 GMT -8
The memo is short on specifics so hard to say what the Mayor wants to accomplish with the studies. Clearly, there will be a political firestorm if we convert the top 5 Rapid line to BRT because all will involve taking parking lane or vehicle travel lane (good idea it may be but not politically tenable at present). The item in question is #6: Instead of a study, we can probably recommend 5 corridors that could use BRT and save Metro some money  1. Wilshire Blvd 2. Vermont Ave 3. Western Ave 4. Van Nuys Blvd/Sepulveda Pass 5. Venice Blvd Purely coincidental (LOL... not!) , also the top 5 Rapid line in terms of ridership. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 2, 2011 9:00:31 GMT -8
Nice map, Carter. West of Sunset and Hollywood, I would have the BRT lane on Hollywood instead of Sunset, as many lines heading north/south terminate and run along there.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Aug 14, 2011 17:24:27 GMT -8
The memo is short on specifics so hard to say what the Mayor wants to accomplish with the studies. Clearly, there will be a political firestorm if we convert the top 5 Rapid line to BRT because all will involve taking parking lane or vehicle travel lane (good idea it may be but not politically tenable at present). The item in question is #6: Instead of a study, we can probably recommend 5 corridors that could use BRT and save Metro some money 1. Wilshire Blvd 2. Vermont Ave 3. Western Ave 4. Van Nuys Blvd/Sepulveda Pass 5. Venice Blvd Purely coincidental (LOL... not!) , also the top 5 Rapid line in terms of ridership. #6. Whittier Blvd #7. Extend Orange Line Busway to San Gabriel Valley #8. San Fernando Rd |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 28, 2011 11:45:51 GMT -8
Metro has produced a preliminary report. They identified 7 corridors for priority study: 1. Vermont 2. 3rd St 3. Santa Monica 4. Western 5. Pico 6. Venice 7. Sunset Van Nuys and Wilshire are excluded because one is currently under study and another one has already moved passed EIR stage. www.metro.net/board/Items/2011/10_October/20111019P&PItem6.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 28, 2011 14:29:59 GMT -8
I would include Hollywood & Fairfax myself.
Although there is only one official rapid line along Hollywood Blvd., several bus lines start and terminate there and a bus-only corridor would be extremely helpful.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 31, 2011 14:00:38 GMT -8
Metro's report (see table A) did identify Hollywood blvd as a candidate. However, I think the presence of Red Line subway on the same corridor means concurrent surface bus way investment would be politically unpopular with the rest of the City.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 1, 2013 10:41:57 GMT -8
Does anyone know the status of this study?
The memo from October 2011 says once the Board approves, Metro will hire consultants to begin the project. Almost 2 years has passed since that time. Are there actually consultants working on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 23, 2014 16:00:48 GMT -8
Good news... we are moving ever so slowly towards more bus only lanes. Metro Board voted in July to move ahead of EIR on Vermont Ave BRT and North Hollywood-Pasadena BRT (I guess could be extension of Orange Line to create a cross town line). But Metro now reports they are only moving forward on hiring a consultant for Vermont Ave BRT. media.metro.net/board/Items/2014/10_october/20141023rbmitem68.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 23, 2014 16:17:56 GMT -8
Connecting orange to gold would create the groundwork for an eventual orange to rail conversion that would convert westward from pasadena.
By that I mean maybe the orange east extension would increase ridership enough to eventually justify a conversion to rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 24, 2014 11:34:16 GMT -8
One of the problem with Gold Line Foothill is that it is not actually the most common commute pattern (north SGV to Downtown LA). A good portion of the commute on 210 freeway goes over to Eaglerock, Glendale, Burbank, and North Hollywood so an east-west crosstown rail or BRT line will definitely increase ridership on both the SFV and SGV segments.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Oct 17, 2015 18:52:11 GMT -8
The SFV-SGV connection is appealing and marks the tipping point phase of Metro's rapid transit network build-out where they get to build the crucial suburb-to-suburb crosstown routes that take the masses along establish commuting patterns based on how this region was settled (and cuts out the city center) such as the coming SFV-SGV route and the existing El Segundo-Norwalk route and eventually the Hollywood-Torrance route and SFV-Westside route, which is not unlike the success of the BART which is 2/3 suburb-to-suburb routes in the East Bay or the G in NYC (ok, bad example lol).
|
|
The other night I decided to catch a bus. The scheduled coach did not arrive, nor did the next coach, but three Rapids did pass. 
