Post by bennyp81 on Jun 20, 2005 8:20:45 GMT -8
Ray
User ID: 0471064 Sep 6th 10:19 AM
LOS ANGELES TIMES 09/06/03
MTA Is Urged to Add 117 Buses
Proposal states the new vehicles are needed to satisfy a consent decree requirement.
By Kurt Streeter, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles County's transit agency was asked on Friday to add at least 117 new buses to its fleet to meet a key requirement of a federal consent decree.
Donald Bliss, a court-appointed special master with powers similar to that of a judge, released a 79-page proposed order, detailing the current status of the decree and calling for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to put the new buses in service with a target date of December 2004.
The MTA operates under a 10-year consent decree, signed in 1996 and monitored by Bliss, a Washington lawyer.
The decree, which the MTA signed instead of going to court over a lawsuit by the nonprofit Bus Riders Union, called for the MTA to reduce passenger overcrowding by meeting certain benchmarks by 2002. The MTA has never been able to achieve the crowding standard and lately has insisted it could meet the goal through more efficient management of its 2,000-bus fleet.
In March, Bliss called for extra service — the equivalent of 125 new buses — to be on the street as soon as possible. That order led to another clash in what has been a drawn-out, bitter dispute between the MTA and the Bus Riders Union.
The MTA said it could meet the service standards by using spare buses, shifting service from little-used routes and improving management. The Bus Riders Union said the MTA should purchase more than 125 buses.
In Friday's proposal, which is still open to negotiation by the two parties, Bliss acknowledged the MTA's efforts to improve its service. But he said that the result remained inadequate and that more than 70 bus routes remain overcrowded.
Bliss now wants the MTA to purchase 100 new 40-foot buses and place them into service by the end of next year. Another 17 buses should be acquired as spares, Bliss wrote.
Until those buses are in service and no later than June, he said, the MTA should lease or use old buses to provide the equivalent of 100 extra buses. Extra mechanics, drivers and service attendants would also be needed to operate them.
Marc Littman, a spokesman for the MTA, said the agency had not seen Friday's proposed order and would not comment. The Bus Riders Union could not be reached for comment.
Both sides will have until Oct. 20 to comment on Bliss' proposed order or to request a hearing with him on the issue.
Ray
User ID: 0471064 Sep 6th 10:50 AM
Some food for thought. Having not argued the consent decree in a while.
What might this do to Roger Snoble's budget? Was this anticipated by the MTA?
Is this 79 page proposed order posted anywhere on line? I'd like to read it before commenting on it specifically.
**********************************************
Does this special master hold the keys to our Federal transit funding? (some or all)
I'm a strong supporter of the Constitutional right to equality.
However does that extend to the government guarantee of a subsidized seat (or standing room) on a bus or train upon demand. What is going on here!?
Whatever happened to waiting for the next bus? I have let trains, buses and trams pass me in NY, London, Tokyo and Milan because they've been too crowded. Sure I was frustrated but I never thought I was discriminated against.
Isn't the provision of transit service an option that the taxpayers have elected to provide based upon our ability to support. The taxpayers then elect officials representative of all the people to decide where and how much service will be provided and what level of subsidy to provide.
Do we not recognize that ultimately the capacity of any system will eventually peak or we'll run out of money. As with our freeways?
Imagine if automobile drivers went to court to claim that the MTA is spending too much money on transit and as a result there is overcrowding on the freeways (heaven forbid if they ever did).
In the new Neo-Conservative environment, could the MTA appeal their case to Congress?
John
User ID: 9510053 Sep 6th 11:36 AM
It's good to see that Bliss is trying to move the decree forward. He is so correct about the overcrowding CONTINUING on many of the bus lines! And this overcrowding is, I believe, totally unnecessary and unjustified! Hopefully the MTA will begin to take immediate steps to implement the provisions called for by Mr. Bliss.
Chrisk
User ID: 9481773 Sep 6th 2:32 PM
What BRU/Eric Mann says:
"The Bus Riders Union said the MTA should purchase more than 125 buses."
What BRU/Eric Mann wants:
"Extra mechanics, drivers and service attendants would also be needed to operate them."
Enough said.
John
User ID: 9510053 Sep 6th 7:18 PM
What Mr. Bliss requested: that the MTA add at least 117 buses to its fleet. Why? Because of the overcrowding that CONTINUES on many bus lines in Los Angeles. Enough said.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1718124 Sep 7th 7:20 AM
What MTA should do is get 117 of the most battered used buses on the market and put them in service saying, "These vehicles were brought to you by the Bus Riders Union."
PaulC
User ID: 8019393 Sep 7th 12:34 PM
I always believe having more buses on the street is a good thing, that way head ways con be shorten. Yet people also have to see that buses will always come up crowded. For one, they don't have the room like Metros do, and the fact that people sometimes leave around the same time to get to where they're going. Look at the morning commute. You cant help but have bus crowding during the this peak time, because everyone needs to get to work at the same time.
I always wonder why people cant see the logical truth sometimes.
Paul
John
User ID: 9510053 Sep 7th 1:03 PM
Thank goodness a logical person like Mr. Bliss was designated to oversee the progress of the Consent Decree.
Art G
User ID: 9454293 Sep 7th 3:03 PM
Although I disagree with the motivations and tactics of the BRU, I can understand the climate which lead to this idiocy. LA's RTD had a horribble service record. And any pre 1997 rail design basically ignored most blue collar neighborhoods(unless most of the route was in a blue collar area,blueline).
Has anyone seen the original Goldline stops, it was like 2 in LA and almost a dozen in Pasadena. Service was also quite discriminatory. I remember reading a story about how disproportionate bus stop shelters were placed in LA. I never understood why our public transit system should pander to the wealthy, when it generally serves the working class. And I wont even start with personal experiences with the RTD.
This, along with tons of other inequalities in our city, have allowed for this kind of reaction(BRU). The BRU and mr. mann have basically preyed on the vulnerability and anger that was justifiably present in many bus riders. Kind of like how the Viet Cong manipulated many vietnamese into believing that the war was about race, and how it had nothing to do with communism.
As long as these inequalities are still present, the MTA will have to deal with the BRU. One example-the goldline. I understand the process by which the goldline was created, but I also have 2 eyes and some logic. It is still appalling to me to see that out of 3 corridors of the San Gabriel valley, which corridor was chosen for rail(not that I dont love the goldline). The 10 and 60 corridors are both much more congested and have been for a much longer time, yet they get not even a mention as far as rail need. And it just so happens to be that the corridor chosen, serves the wealthiest area of the SGV, the most anglo, and the alignment with the least working class neighborhoods around it.And they didnt even want to put stops in these poorer areas to begin with!
Now.Like I said, I understand that this issue is not black and white. I recognize that Pasadena was a city center that needed to be connected to LA, and all the other technical stuff that contributed to this line being built. But many dont, and I am a rare example. It is annoying that East LA hadnt gotten a rail line yet as well. But my frstration is with the ENTIRE system we live in, not just the MTA. Most people dont take the time to research transit issues like us, and it shows every time we see the BRU in action. Because ,after all, it is just mobilizing people pissed about our transit system(which isnt hard!)
Ken Alpern
User ID: 0784604 Sep 7th 10:52 PM
To date, I think Donald Bliss and the MTA have really done the right thing with respect to new bus purchases.
Mr. Bliss is NOT giving the BRU, which is asking for hundreds of new buses and no more rail, but is asking for a reasonable amount of new buses.
On their part, the MTA is already throwing new and old/refixed buses at a rate which seems to jive with what Mr. Bliss is asking for.
The only ones standing to lose is the BRU which, after 2006, might have a shaky future indeed.
I certainly hope that by 2006, The Transit Coalition can successfully supplant the BRU as a transit advocacy which gets the job done in a nonconfrontational and rational manner.
After 2006, Mr. Mann can go hustle the establishment somewhere else...
Cliffj
User ID: 9983153 Sep 8th 5:08 AM
He'll certainly be RICH ENOUGH to! $200,000+ per year indeed. If only Bart could make that kind of money. Then he could hire me to drive him around to various train stations to make his many Friends4 meetings
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Sep 8th 11:55 AM
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Monday, September 8, 2003
MTA May End or Reduce Service on 21 Bus Routes
To save money and be more businesslike, the agency plans changes on least-used lines. Riders object, saying they depend on the buses.
By Caitlin Liu and Kurt Streeter
Times Staff Writers
Twice a week, Leonard Feldman, 90 and blind in one eye, takes the No. 218 bus from Studio City over the Hollywood Hills to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center to visit his ailing wife.
"It's the only way I'm going to get over the hill without making all kinds of transfers," Feldman said while sitting with just one other passenger on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority bus. But he soon may have to find a new way to the hospital.
Trying to save money, the MTA hopes to reduce service on Line 218 by canceling weekend trips and operating only during rush hours, Mondays through Fridays.
The change is part of an MTA plan to eliminate or cut service on 21 bus lines with few riders and to add service on two routes. The changes, which could take effect Oct. 26, would shake up routes throughout Los Angeles County.
The proposed cuts follow a reshuffling in June, when the MTA reduced or eliminated service on 10 low-performing routes while adding trips to 62 crowded lines and creating 14 new ones — the biggest overhaul of the county's bus service in two decades.
The changes signal a shift in philosophy for the nation's third-largest transit agency. The MTA, which operates nearly 200 bus routes, wants to function more like a business in an era of dwindling funds and increasing traffic congestion.
"We're trying to get maximum efficiency," said MTA Deputy Chief John Catoe. "That means we have to make hard choices about bus routes that aren't generating many riders."
But critics say the agency is giving short shrift to riders whose lives don't fall neatly within typical commuting hours.
Nancy Coreas, a 22-year-old student at Los Angeles Valley College, said she takes the No. 167 bus to school every day.
"I take it on weekends to go to work." Coreas, who attended a recent Van Nuys public hearing to protest the proposed cancellation of weekend runs on the route between Studio City and Chatsworth, said, "If I don't have that transportation, I can't go to work. I can't pay for school. I won't be able to pay my rent."
The MTA operates under a federal consent decree that requires better service and less crowding on buses.
The agency has long failed to satisfy the demands of the order, although Donald Bliss, the court-appointed special master monitoring the MTA's progress, allowed the agency to proceed with its June plan.
Last week, Bliss asked the agency to add at least 117 new buses to its fleet by next year.
While pleased that the MTA had added service to crowded lines over the summer, some riders think Bliss should not have let the agency tamper with or cut other routes.
"Don't they get it?" asked Downey resident Andrew Novak, who commutes by bus to his job at Cal State L.A.. "These are real lives they are affecting."
MTA officials say the changes are part of a larger effort to get more bang for the taxpayer buck and are a harbinger of major changes in the works for public transit in the county: a "hub and spoke" route system of short-hop shuttles and express buses to carry riders between a network of new transit centers.
Toward those ends, the MTA is expanding its network of the highly popular Metro Rapid buses, which make fewer stops and use transponder technology to keep traffic lights green as they approach. Countywide, there are now six Metro Rapid lines, and the agency plans to add 22 more within five years.
The MTA also seeks to eliminate overlapping routes and rely more on such municipal operators as Culver CityBus to provide service. The savings from cuts to poorly used or duplicate routes will help pay for additional trips on busy lines, officials say.
Fares do not fully cover the cost of operating buses, and the shortfall is covered by public subsidies. To choose where to cut service, the agency is taking aim at bus lines with few riders. Some of the busiest routes handle considerably more than 100 boardings an hour and have subsidies of about $1 a rider.
Feldman's Line 218 carries 21 people an hour with a subsidy of $2.15 per rider, according to the MTA's May data.
Other lines the MTA hopes to cut are even more costly to operate. For example, Line 58 provides the only connection between the Metro Rail Blue Line, the downtown Los Angeles Greyhound station and Union Station. The MTA hyped the line when it began three years ago as an alternative for garment workers in the city's fashion district.
But Line 58 averages just three passengers per hour on the road and a per-rider public subsidy of $16.66, the MTA says.
Because of the changes in June, the total number of hours that MTA buses serve the public increased 1%. The number of annual miles traveled by buses grew by 300,000, to 92 million.
Officials say the agency also added 270,000 annual bus "trips" systemwide, a 5.5% increase.
But part of that, they concede, was generated when some long lines were divided into two or three shorter routes that required some riders to transfer more often, thus generating more "trips."
The proposed October changes, if approved by the MTA's five regional councils, would wipe out some or all of those gains. The agency estimates that there still would be a net increase of 200,000 annual bus trips. But annual bus-miles would drop by 1 million, to 91 million. No estimates were available for the effect on bus service hours.
MTA officials say that, before implementing any more changes, they will work to better inform the bus-riding public. Despite the agency's belief that it improved overall service with the June changes, many riders still find shortcomings and continue to complain bitterly at public meetings.
"I'd give us a C minus on how we managed" the June changes, said MTA Chief Executive Roger Snoble. "That's got to change."
It's not a public relations problem, bus riders say, but one of service, which may be improving overall but has made life more difficult for some riders because service is more fragmented.
"With the cuts, transportation has been horrendous. It's been decimated," said Pat O'Connor, a 60-year-old Pacoima resident. "Trips I used to take that took me an hour, it now takes me two hours."
Some riders say the increased inconvenience is making them reconsider using public transit.
Gladwell Bote, a 45-year-old Canoga Park caregiver, said that — because of poor route-to-route connections — what used to be an hour commute to Burbank takes 15 minutes longer since her line was replaced by a Metro Rapid bus. "It has really started me thinking maybe I should get a car," she said.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Dane
User ID: 1878484 Sep 8th 1:23 PM
Bart,
If you please, could you explain the level of empowerment given to the regional councils, and how cuts to certain lines that fall within two jurisdictions are handled?
For instance, take line 218 - let's say that the public pleads its case not to cut that level of service, you and the rest of the Valley council vote not to alter the service, but Headquarters (I assume they have jurisdiction when it gets over the hills) pushes to implement the changes. What happens then?
I personally don't find the subsidy level of $2.15 per rider too high for a line that provides direct service to a world-class regional hospital fer cryin' out loud!
Besides, as you have pointed out before, and the article mentions, the MTA is basing that change on ridership statistics only as recent as May?
John
User ID: 9510053 Sep 8th 1:52 PM
I see several people boarding the #218 almost every time I'm waiting at Third & Fairfax to return home from Farmers Market/the Grove. While I can't help being impressed that some of them probably ride that little van-like bus all the way from the San Fernando Valley to visit the marvelous Farmers Market/the Grove, still I always wonder why they don't just go a nice TOD in the Valley. I mean, I certainly wouldn't travel all the way from Hollywood to the San Fernando Valley just to go to some TOD that they might have over there.
Henry
User ID: 9614573 Sep 9th 1:49 AM
I think it is very important now for riders not just to be present at the hearings now, but also in October when they consider these changes. In some of the sectors, like SGV and Gateway Cities, they may not be as rider-aware as some of the more enlightened sectors. Thus, we need to show up to those meetings and ensure that someone is watching their moves.
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Sep 9th 12:36 PM
See the Upcoming Meetings You Can Attend Thread and look at the Valley Sector Topic. We ask that you write MTA to express your concerns and also attend the Sector meetings tonight and Thursday.
Þ-Þ-®-Þ-Þ
User ID: 0471064 Sep 6th 10:19 AM
LOS ANGELES TIMES 09/06/03
MTA Is Urged to Add 117 Buses
Proposal states the new vehicles are needed to satisfy a consent decree requirement.
By Kurt Streeter, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles County's transit agency was asked on Friday to add at least 117 new buses to its fleet to meet a key requirement of a federal consent decree.
Donald Bliss, a court-appointed special master with powers similar to that of a judge, released a 79-page proposed order, detailing the current status of the decree and calling for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to put the new buses in service with a target date of December 2004.
The MTA operates under a 10-year consent decree, signed in 1996 and monitored by Bliss, a Washington lawyer.
The decree, which the MTA signed instead of going to court over a lawsuit by the nonprofit Bus Riders Union, called for the MTA to reduce passenger overcrowding by meeting certain benchmarks by 2002. The MTA has never been able to achieve the crowding standard and lately has insisted it could meet the goal through more efficient management of its 2,000-bus fleet.
In March, Bliss called for extra service — the equivalent of 125 new buses — to be on the street as soon as possible. That order led to another clash in what has been a drawn-out, bitter dispute between the MTA and the Bus Riders Union.
The MTA said it could meet the service standards by using spare buses, shifting service from little-used routes and improving management. The Bus Riders Union said the MTA should purchase more than 125 buses.
In Friday's proposal, which is still open to negotiation by the two parties, Bliss acknowledged the MTA's efforts to improve its service. But he said that the result remained inadequate and that more than 70 bus routes remain overcrowded.
Bliss now wants the MTA to purchase 100 new 40-foot buses and place them into service by the end of next year. Another 17 buses should be acquired as spares, Bliss wrote.
Until those buses are in service and no later than June, he said, the MTA should lease or use old buses to provide the equivalent of 100 extra buses. Extra mechanics, drivers and service attendants would also be needed to operate them.
Marc Littman, a spokesman for the MTA, said the agency had not seen Friday's proposed order and would not comment. The Bus Riders Union could not be reached for comment.
Both sides will have until Oct. 20 to comment on Bliss' proposed order or to request a hearing with him on the issue.
Ray
User ID: 0471064 Sep 6th 10:50 AM
Some food for thought. Having not argued the consent decree in a while.
What might this do to Roger Snoble's budget? Was this anticipated by the MTA?
Is this 79 page proposed order posted anywhere on line? I'd like to read it before commenting on it specifically.
**********************************************
Does this special master hold the keys to our Federal transit funding? (some or all)
I'm a strong supporter of the Constitutional right to equality.
However does that extend to the government guarantee of a subsidized seat (or standing room) on a bus or train upon demand. What is going on here!?
Whatever happened to waiting for the next bus? I have let trains, buses and trams pass me in NY, London, Tokyo and Milan because they've been too crowded. Sure I was frustrated but I never thought I was discriminated against.
Isn't the provision of transit service an option that the taxpayers have elected to provide based upon our ability to support. The taxpayers then elect officials representative of all the people to decide where and how much service will be provided and what level of subsidy to provide.
Do we not recognize that ultimately the capacity of any system will eventually peak or we'll run out of money. As with our freeways?
Imagine if automobile drivers went to court to claim that the MTA is spending too much money on transit and as a result there is overcrowding on the freeways (heaven forbid if they ever did).
In the new Neo-Conservative environment, could the MTA appeal their case to Congress?
John
User ID: 9510053 Sep 6th 11:36 AM
It's good to see that Bliss is trying to move the decree forward. He is so correct about the overcrowding CONTINUING on many of the bus lines! And this overcrowding is, I believe, totally unnecessary and unjustified! Hopefully the MTA will begin to take immediate steps to implement the provisions called for by Mr. Bliss.
Chrisk
User ID: 9481773 Sep 6th 2:32 PM
What BRU/Eric Mann says:
"The Bus Riders Union said the MTA should purchase more than 125 buses."
What BRU/Eric Mann wants:
"Extra mechanics, drivers and service attendants would also be needed to operate them."
Enough said.
John
User ID: 9510053 Sep 6th 7:18 PM
What Mr. Bliss requested: that the MTA add at least 117 buses to its fleet. Why? Because of the overcrowding that CONTINUES on many bus lines in Los Angeles. Enough said.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 1718124 Sep 7th 7:20 AM
What MTA should do is get 117 of the most battered used buses on the market and put them in service saying, "These vehicles were brought to you by the Bus Riders Union."
PaulC
User ID: 8019393 Sep 7th 12:34 PM
I always believe having more buses on the street is a good thing, that way head ways con be shorten. Yet people also have to see that buses will always come up crowded. For one, they don't have the room like Metros do, and the fact that people sometimes leave around the same time to get to where they're going. Look at the morning commute. You cant help but have bus crowding during the this peak time, because everyone needs to get to work at the same time.
I always wonder why people cant see the logical truth sometimes.
Paul
John
User ID: 9510053 Sep 7th 1:03 PM
Thank goodness a logical person like Mr. Bliss was designated to oversee the progress of the Consent Decree.
Art G
User ID: 9454293 Sep 7th 3:03 PM
Although I disagree with the motivations and tactics of the BRU, I can understand the climate which lead to this idiocy. LA's RTD had a horribble service record. And any pre 1997 rail design basically ignored most blue collar neighborhoods(unless most of the route was in a blue collar area,blueline).
Has anyone seen the original Goldline stops, it was like 2 in LA and almost a dozen in Pasadena. Service was also quite discriminatory. I remember reading a story about how disproportionate bus stop shelters were placed in LA. I never understood why our public transit system should pander to the wealthy, when it generally serves the working class. And I wont even start with personal experiences with the RTD.
This, along with tons of other inequalities in our city, have allowed for this kind of reaction(BRU). The BRU and mr. mann have basically preyed on the vulnerability and anger that was justifiably present in many bus riders. Kind of like how the Viet Cong manipulated many vietnamese into believing that the war was about race, and how it had nothing to do with communism.
As long as these inequalities are still present, the MTA will have to deal with the BRU. One example-the goldline. I understand the process by which the goldline was created, but I also have 2 eyes and some logic. It is still appalling to me to see that out of 3 corridors of the San Gabriel valley, which corridor was chosen for rail(not that I dont love the goldline). The 10 and 60 corridors are both much more congested and have been for a much longer time, yet they get not even a mention as far as rail need. And it just so happens to be that the corridor chosen, serves the wealthiest area of the SGV, the most anglo, and the alignment with the least working class neighborhoods around it.And they didnt even want to put stops in these poorer areas to begin with!
Now.Like I said, I understand that this issue is not black and white. I recognize that Pasadena was a city center that needed to be connected to LA, and all the other technical stuff that contributed to this line being built. But many dont, and I am a rare example. It is annoying that East LA hadnt gotten a rail line yet as well. But my frstration is with the ENTIRE system we live in, not just the MTA. Most people dont take the time to research transit issues like us, and it shows every time we see the BRU in action. Because ,after all, it is just mobilizing people pissed about our transit system(which isnt hard!)
Ken Alpern
User ID: 0784604 Sep 7th 10:52 PM
To date, I think Donald Bliss and the MTA have really done the right thing with respect to new bus purchases.
Mr. Bliss is NOT giving the BRU, which is asking for hundreds of new buses and no more rail, but is asking for a reasonable amount of new buses.
On their part, the MTA is already throwing new and old/refixed buses at a rate which seems to jive with what Mr. Bliss is asking for.
The only ones standing to lose is the BRU which, after 2006, might have a shaky future indeed.
I certainly hope that by 2006, The Transit Coalition can successfully supplant the BRU as a transit advocacy which gets the job done in a nonconfrontational and rational manner.
After 2006, Mr. Mann can go hustle the establishment somewhere else...
Cliffj
User ID: 9983153 Sep 8th 5:08 AM
After 2006, Mr. Mann can go hustle the establishment somewhere else...
He'll certainly be RICH ENOUGH to! $200,000+ per year indeed. If only Bart could make that kind of money. Then he could hire me to drive him around to various train stations to make his many Friends4 meetings
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Sep 8th 11:55 AM
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Monday, September 8, 2003
MTA May End or Reduce Service on 21 Bus Routes
To save money and be more businesslike, the agency plans changes on least-used lines. Riders object, saying they depend on the buses.
By Caitlin Liu and Kurt Streeter
Times Staff Writers
Twice a week, Leonard Feldman, 90 and blind in one eye, takes the No. 218 bus from Studio City over the Hollywood Hills to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center to visit his ailing wife.
"It's the only way I'm going to get over the hill without making all kinds of transfers," Feldman said while sitting with just one other passenger on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority bus. But he soon may have to find a new way to the hospital.
Trying to save money, the MTA hopes to reduce service on Line 218 by canceling weekend trips and operating only during rush hours, Mondays through Fridays.
The change is part of an MTA plan to eliminate or cut service on 21 bus lines with few riders and to add service on two routes. The changes, which could take effect Oct. 26, would shake up routes throughout Los Angeles County.
The proposed cuts follow a reshuffling in June, when the MTA reduced or eliminated service on 10 low-performing routes while adding trips to 62 crowded lines and creating 14 new ones — the biggest overhaul of the county's bus service in two decades.
The changes signal a shift in philosophy for the nation's third-largest transit agency. The MTA, which operates nearly 200 bus routes, wants to function more like a business in an era of dwindling funds and increasing traffic congestion.
"We're trying to get maximum efficiency," said MTA Deputy Chief John Catoe. "That means we have to make hard choices about bus routes that aren't generating many riders."
But critics say the agency is giving short shrift to riders whose lives don't fall neatly within typical commuting hours.
Nancy Coreas, a 22-year-old student at Los Angeles Valley College, said she takes the No. 167 bus to school every day.
"I take it on weekends to go to work." Coreas, who attended a recent Van Nuys public hearing to protest the proposed cancellation of weekend runs on the route between Studio City and Chatsworth, said, "If I don't have that transportation, I can't go to work. I can't pay for school. I won't be able to pay my rent."
The MTA operates under a federal consent decree that requires better service and less crowding on buses.
The agency has long failed to satisfy the demands of the order, although Donald Bliss, the court-appointed special master monitoring the MTA's progress, allowed the agency to proceed with its June plan.
Last week, Bliss asked the agency to add at least 117 new buses to its fleet by next year.
While pleased that the MTA had added service to crowded lines over the summer, some riders think Bliss should not have let the agency tamper with or cut other routes.
"Don't they get it?" asked Downey resident Andrew Novak, who commutes by bus to his job at Cal State L.A.. "These are real lives they are affecting."
MTA officials say the changes are part of a larger effort to get more bang for the taxpayer buck and are a harbinger of major changes in the works for public transit in the county: a "hub and spoke" route system of short-hop shuttles and express buses to carry riders between a network of new transit centers.
Toward those ends, the MTA is expanding its network of the highly popular Metro Rapid buses, which make fewer stops and use transponder technology to keep traffic lights green as they approach. Countywide, there are now six Metro Rapid lines, and the agency plans to add 22 more within five years.
The MTA also seeks to eliminate overlapping routes and rely more on such municipal operators as Culver CityBus to provide service. The savings from cuts to poorly used or duplicate routes will help pay for additional trips on busy lines, officials say.
Fares do not fully cover the cost of operating buses, and the shortfall is covered by public subsidies. To choose where to cut service, the agency is taking aim at bus lines with few riders. Some of the busiest routes handle considerably more than 100 boardings an hour and have subsidies of about $1 a rider.
Feldman's Line 218 carries 21 people an hour with a subsidy of $2.15 per rider, according to the MTA's May data.
Other lines the MTA hopes to cut are even more costly to operate. For example, Line 58 provides the only connection between the Metro Rail Blue Line, the downtown Los Angeles Greyhound station and Union Station. The MTA hyped the line when it began three years ago as an alternative for garment workers in the city's fashion district.
But Line 58 averages just three passengers per hour on the road and a per-rider public subsidy of $16.66, the MTA says.
Because of the changes in June, the total number of hours that MTA buses serve the public increased 1%. The number of annual miles traveled by buses grew by 300,000, to 92 million.
Officials say the agency also added 270,000 annual bus "trips" systemwide, a 5.5% increase.
But part of that, they concede, was generated when some long lines were divided into two or three shorter routes that required some riders to transfer more often, thus generating more "trips."
The proposed October changes, if approved by the MTA's five regional councils, would wipe out some or all of those gains. The agency estimates that there still would be a net increase of 200,000 annual bus trips. But annual bus-miles would drop by 1 million, to 91 million. No estimates were available for the effect on bus service hours.
MTA officials say that, before implementing any more changes, they will work to better inform the bus-riding public. Despite the agency's belief that it improved overall service with the June changes, many riders still find shortcomings and continue to complain bitterly at public meetings.
"I'd give us a C minus on how we managed" the June changes, said MTA Chief Executive Roger Snoble. "That's got to change."
It's not a public relations problem, bus riders say, but one of service, which may be improving overall but has made life more difficult for some riders because service is more fragmented.
"With the cuts, transportation has been horrendous. It's been decimated," said Pat O'Connor, a 60-year-old Pacoima resident. "Trips I used to take that took me an hour, it now takes me two hours."
Some riders say the increased inconvenience is making them reconsider using public transit.
Gladwell Bote, a 45-year-old Canoga Park caregiver, said that — because of poor route-to-route connections — what used to be an hour commute to Burbank takes 15 minutes longer since her line was replaced by a Metro Rapid bus. "It has really started me thinking maybe I should get a car," she said.
Þ--Þ--Þ
Dane
User ID: 1878484 Sep 8th 1:23 PM
Bart,
If you please, could you explain the level of empowerment given to the regional councils, and how cuts to certain lines that fall within two jurisdictions are handled?
For instance, take line 218 - let's say that the public pleads its case not to cut that level of service, you and the rest of the Valley council vote not to alter the service, but Headquarters (I assume they have jurisdiction when it gets over the hills) pushes to implement the changes. What happens then?
I personally don't find the subsidy level of $2.15 per rider too high for a line that provides direct service to a world-class regional hospital fer cryin' out loud!
Besides, as you have pointed out before, and the article mentions, the MTA is basing that change on ridership statistics only as recent as May?
John
User ID: 9510053 Sep 8th 1:52 PM
I see several people boarding the #218 almost every time I'm waiting at Third & Fairfax to return home from Farmers Market/the Grove. While I can't help being impressed that some of them probably ride that little van-like bus all the way from the San Fernando Valley to visit the marvelous Farmers Market/the Grove, still I always wonder why they don't just go a nice TOD in the Valley. I mean, I certainly wouldn't travel all the way from Hollywood to the San Fernando Valley just to go to some TOD that they might have over there.
Henry
User ID: 9614573 Sep 9th 1:49 AM
I think it is very important now for riders not just to be present at the hearings now, but also in October when they consider these changes. In some of the sectors, like SGV and Gateway Cities, they may not be as rider-aware as some of the more enlightened sectors. Thus, we need to show up to those meetings and ensure that someone is watching their moves.
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Sep 9th 12:36 PM
See the Upcoming Meetings You Can Attend Thread and look at the Valley Sector Topic. We ask that you write MTA to express your concerns and also attend the Sector meetings tonight and Thursday.
Þ-Þ-®-Þ-Þ