Post by bennyp81 on Jun 20, 2005 10:20:25 GMT -8
Paul Britton Jr.
User ID: 7852033 Feb 20th 6:09 AM
The Hub & Spoke project has been renamed "Metro Connections:
www.metro.net/board/Items/2004/02_February/20040219OPItem26.pdf
Dane
User ID: 1473814 Feb 20th 11:52 AM
I still prefer "Smoke and Mirrors", myself ;-)
Jerard
User ID: 0930774 Feb 20th 12:17 PM
I prefer Mini Curtiba
PaulC
User ID: 0269124 Feb 20th 9:23 PM
How about "This idea is a flop".
Paul
Robert
User ID: 2037954 Feb 20th 11:09 PM
If "Metro Connections" is planned, designed and integrated correctly, it would provide more efficient and better service for all. We see airlines doing this all the time, with direct flights on heavy traveled routes. This must be coordinated with Metrolink and all the other transit agencies in the region. Also, the bus and rail divisions within Metro must also talk to each other.
-=‡÷«±»÷‡=-
-=‡÷ßÔß÷‡=-
-=‡÷«†»÷‡=-
Brad
User ID: 9955583 Feb 21st 12:00 AM
Call me thick headed, but can anyone please give me an example of how this proposed Hub and Spoke system would actually work? Thanks!
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Feb 21st 12:54 AM
The way I see it, the rail system is the backbone, and the bus service provides the spokes outward from rail. It could work well if there was more rail, and I expect that the system is being designed with this in mind. My concern is not with the concept, but with its implementation. I expect that the MTA will create "HUBS" that are not at all destinations in their own right, but artificial spaces that are chosen for their convenience to the MTA.
Excellent hubs would be 7/Metro, Hollywood Vine, North Hollywood Red Lne Station, Del Mar Sattion, Union Station, Vermont/Wilshire, to name a few obvious choices. But the MTA has indicatd that it would choose to create hubs in places where lines converge, and its possible they would be in places that nobody would otherwise go. This is like a "separate but equal" system whereby transit riders would be forced to congregate where the hubs are and not where they want to go.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 2609274 Feb 21st 8:52 AM
Hub and spoke is Zev's Curitiba fetish crammed down the throats of riders.
Obviously it's touted as more convenient for passengers. Would any marketing professional say that hub and spoke is going to be inconvenient, forces more transfers and is only designed to imitate a Third World transit system for the sake of imitation?
MTA is destroying a route grid that does not need changing. The beauty of the system grid is that people are able to make transfers along the grid.
Airlines use hubs because they don't want to fly too many planes and provide a service grid. Leave it to them.
The best system for L.A. would be what I call a "spider web" network. I incorporated it into my RTD Plan (R, TM and C for route suggestions. When you see a spider web, you see an intricate pattern weaved of grids and nodes where the webs originate. The key components of the plan:
*Like hub and spoke, L.A.'s routing grid would have several transit centers. The goal is to have as many routes end at these centers as possible. Though unlike hub and spoke, L.A.'s one line on one street principle would remain, rather than having a high-frequency trunk line and a lower-frequency feeder.
*The bus routing involves destroying forced transfers that are holdovers from the streetcar days. This means there would be a single service on Pico, Western, Vermont, etc. (This involves MTA getting out of operations, grafting MTA routes with munis and turning over service to munis or new sub-regional companies.)
*The spider web relies on very long local lines. While the end-to-end lengths are long, these are done for grid purity and not necessarily because people will ride from one end to the other.
*Operationally, MTA would implement "dynamic scheduling" to maintain on-time service. Now, drivers operate routes based on a paddle. Under dynamic scheduling, a driver would end at a node, take a break and then get sent out on a line where he/she is needed to maintain service. This could mean that the driver may return on the original route, but most likely he/she would drive a different route. (See Kym's web site, www.transit-insider.org, under the "Dynamic Scheduling" thread for a better explanation.)
*The RTD would serve most of Southern California, much like the old RTD did. But the other agencies would still have autonomy, but there will be a single paint scheme, fare structure and line numbering plan.
I thought of the spider web based on my experiences as a rider and advocate. It suits L.A. because it focuses around how riders actually ride transit. The spider web allows riders to choose from several ways to get from point A to point B, depending on his/her preferences and moods. They can choose from the quickest trip, the fewest transfers, or the most direct route. (Don't worry, guys, I have an extensive rail component in the RTD Plan.) Riders choose what rail or bus lines they wish to ride.
Jerry
User ID: 9955583 Feb 21st 10:07 AM
I just hope they don't go changing route numbers again, because that's a big headache. I remember when the old RTD changed route numbers back in the late 70s or early 80s, it was really confusing. By that time route numbers had become synonymous and associated with actual street routes themselves. Therefore the Line 26,(replacement of the old P line streetcar), was synonymous with West Pico Bl./East 1st st.. Same held true with Line 83 and Wilshire Bl, Line 25 and Figueroa St., Line 6 and York Bl./Vermont Av. and Line 44/ West Beverly Bl.along with a host of other bus lines. Then came the renumbering process, from people who don't think twice about the actual people who use the bus system, that forced passengers to associate totally new route numbers with, in some cases new routes. I recall the complaints the following day when the new system kicked in. The most common complaint was to simply leave the route numbers, that everyone had come to associate with a particular street, alone. Now a few decades have passed and they are at it again. I just hope this time they leave the numbers alone even if they do decide to go with this Hub and Spoke system. It might not seem to be a very important thing to those who drive, but for people like myself who totally depend on public transit, number designations are very important and changing them from one day to the next can be a nightmare.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 2609274 Feb 22nd 8:57 AM
Jerry, are you actually knocking the line numbering system? How dare you?! :>
The line numbering system is one of the best things MTA has going for it. What makes our numbering system great is that there's an underlying logic to it, and it's very easy to understand. I'm assuming you know why routes are numbered the way they are.
But, there's even more logic behind the numbers. The 1-99 and 400-499 radiate counterclockwise from downtown L.A. Currently, it begins with 2 on Sunset, and works its way around to 96 on Riverside Drive. We don't have many express routes anymore, but if you remember the days when we were teeming with them, the radii began with 401 on the Pasadena Freeway to (now-Foothill) 499 on the 10 freeway to the San Gabriel Valley.
It's also great because knowing the line numbers can also help you find yourself in L.A. If you memorize route numbers, you could easily track the major arterials.
Any change brings about confusion. Changing route numbers is no different. But, only busfans still refer to old route numbers before the Great Renumbering. So, the confusion wears off, and even you have to admit that our numbering system is much better over the old (which were just adopting streetcar numbers).
If you want to know what is confusion, try a bus system with number-letter combinations for routing nomenclature. I have no trouble with X, as that is an express route. I'm also keen on smaller bus systems that divide routes into N/S and E/W. But some systems use A/B/C to indicate branches, while some give random letters to determine what part of town it goes to. Now, take a highly logical scheme like what L.A. has. (Las Vegas has an identical scheme, but the numbers have the opposite designations.) Then compare it to some of the worst offenders, WMATA (Washington DC) and PAT (Pittsburgh). WMATA has so many combinations, and in some cases letters preceding the numbers, that it's like trying to crack into computer code. And Pittsburgh actually has number-letter pairs where the routes do not branch off one another. (Say, 1A and 1B might run to the same suburb, but they use completely different streets and may not even touch each other.)
To those systems, let me point them to an invention called the electronic headsign. These wonderful gizmos let agencies program lines of up to four digits (three numbers plus a letter suffix), and there's a keypad so that all the information comes up instantly, rather than having to spool through line numbers and destinations. So, letter-number combinations are no longer needed or useful. While they're at it, they should take the time to develop a logical route numbering system and tailor it to the kind of service they provide.
PaulC
User ID: 0269124 Feb 22nd 11:07 AM
Why did MTA do away with so many express buses?
Paul
Henry
User ID: 0575574 Feb 22nd 11:07 PM
MTA did away with express buses because they are not efficient to run. The cost per passenger is higher because the passengers have their butts in the seats longer. MTA never did a good job at serving customers as well as LADOT and Foothill did, and their buses were in worse shape than LADOT and Foothill. Also, the rail system has gradually replaced the bus system.
One way where the letters would be useful is to indicate connections to the rail lines. It would also make those letters that the rail lines be more useful. So, for instance, instead of having the 686, which tells us nothing about where the bus is, you might have the 86C. I would envision the rail feeders with this nomenclature, and for the rail feeders, I would print the rail connection times with the bus schedule (rail schedules don't change that often anyway). This would further integrate rail and bus.
So, any bus line that has timed connections with the rail line would take the letter designation. This would quickly eliminate most of the 600 lines, which are a scourge on the numbering system. Then some of the buses that are clearly rail feeders (or should have schedule to be modified as such), as the now 20D (120), 2B (202), 66A (166), and 64C (264) would be renumbered to this system. This would also promote rail and bus as an integrated system. Major lines that serve multiple rail lines, as well as those who operate independently of rail, would not be renumbered.
Cliffj
User ID: 7893693 Feb 23rd 12:31 AM
So Henry, are you saying that if the MTA decided to promote that hideous system of officially calling our color named rail ID system the little used alphabet name system (A,B,C,D etc), the bus lines that feed into these rail lines would also carry those same letters to identify what rail lines they feed into? (breathe) Well, I can see how that would be an excellent idea IF their were more rail lines criss-crossing the city, even if it's just the number of lines proposed in the 'dream-line' threads. Otherwise, with the current bus grid, I don't see the point.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 2609274 Feb 23rd 6:54 AM
These are my personal opinions, and they may be too intense for some readers.
NO, NO, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS. Do not revert to the perplexing letter-number system. And the idea of affixing letters to existing bus lines is as bad as Pittsburgh.
A 66A for 166? First, 66A will not run into downtown. Second, 66A is miles away from Eighth Street and East Olympic Boulevard, a busy line in central L.A. And 20A for 120? Imperial Highway is about 12 miles south of Wilshire.
Second, the only people who like rail feeders are planners. They don't want to see their rail lines fail, so they want to shunt as many trips onto trains as possible. L.A. doesn't have this problem. Hell, we can get people to ride the Green Line on their own. And, one of the best things about L.A.'s rail lines are that the stations are planned around the street grids. If you look at most systems, urban rail stations are islands of seclusion, with no connection to the street or necessarily to their neighborhoods. With L.A., you have stations that are connected to streets, so that means that buses can stop near the station and continue on their normal route. The bus and rail still "feed" passengers into each other, without making routes solely to feed into the rail system.
Oh, and one more thing about rail-bus integration: the integration is pretty darn good now. Bus and rail fares are the same. (Some systems like San Diego and Boston charge different fares for rail and buses). MTA makes sure the stations are connected with bus service. (Remember that MTA does not have the power to force munis to do anything. They can choose to serve stations if they wish). Also, MTA is good about informing passengers of connecting buses at stations and what rail lines bus lines serve.
And Henry makes a good point on why express bus services are largely gone. One, they aren't efficient because they make few stops. Two, it requires a large number of buses to be idle during off-peak hours. Three, unless an express route was a branch of a local trunk (like 442 is a branch of 40), it means you must have a large number of extra board and split run drivers to work during rush hours for a unique line (this is a bone of contention during collective bargaining). Four, express buses had no competitive advantage. They'd be stuck on freeways with cars, and once HOV lanes were built, former riders switched to carpooling. Five, when MTA had to cut service, it cut express lines because it had the fewest riders. Six, and this is the one that shames the Reason Foundation, when a rail line opens and serves a similar corridor, rail attracts more people than the express buses ever could or did.
PForce
User ID: 0247944 Feb 25th 5:22 PM
Using the "Metro Trip Planner" to go from Venice to meet my brother-in-law at the Veterans Affairs Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, I got the following response:
Go to SW corner of Windward Ave/Main St (Venice)
a. Take Santa Monica #1 East at 8:14 a.m.
b. Get off at Hilgard Ave/Westholme Ave (Westwood) at 9:01.
Go to take Metro Rapid 761 North at 9:13 a.m.
Go to SE corner of Hilgard Ave/Westholme Ave (Westwood)
a. Take Metro Rapid 761 North (Lakeview Terrace) at 9:13 a.m.
b. Use transfer
c. Get off at Van Nuys Blvd/Roscoe Blvd at 9:58 a.m.
Go to NE corner of Van Nuys Blvd/Roscoe Blvd
a. Take Metro Bus 167 North ("NO RECD FOR THIS LINE") AT 10:10 A.M.
b. Pay $1.25 (Monthly Pass $52)
c. Get off at Veterans Hosp/bldg 22 (Plummer and Haskell) at 10:26 a.m.
Total Cost: $2.25
Estimated Travel Time: 2 Hours 12 Minutes
Good thing I'm not a disabled vet. I think I'll drive, as much as I detest long drives.
Henry
User ID: 9614573 Feb 25th 9:34 PM
The letter number system does reinforce the rail system. Of course, to avoid passenger confusion, the rail feeders would be renumbered somehow to avoid duplicating the two-digit numbers with existing lines. And yes, more rail lines would be necessary. My dream system has A through H. No lines would be deliberately restructured, but already you have several dozen lines that begin or end at rail stations and could be called rail feeders. The low frequency lines could be re-timed to have layovers at rail stations. For instance, most of the lines in the Valley that serve the Red Line stations could be renumbered. So too lines like the 125, 126, 130, 255, 264, and 267.
The idea missed here is that the rail schedules would be INCLUDED IN BUS SCHEDULES as part of the letter-number concept. This is similar to MBTA in Boston, which lists commuter rail connection times, or County Connection in Walnut Creek, which lists BART arrival and departure times.
To answer Chris's point, while some stations are integrated well with the urban fabric, there are many examples, like all the Green Line stations, North Hollywood and Universal City Red Line stations, and the Artesia Blue Line station that are just stations with moats of parking around them.
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Aug 2nd 12:02 AM
Los Angeles Business Journal: Monday, Aug. 2, 2004
MTA Rolling Out Plan to Overhaul City Bus Routes
By HOWARD FINE
Staff Reporter
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority plans to propose a sweeping overhaul of its bus-route system and expand the use of bus-only lanes on crowded city streets.
Later this month, transit officials are set to roll out a plan to build dozens of transit hubs throughout the county. Bus routes that are now laid out in a grid system would gradually be realigned to connect to these hubs.
Along with the expanded bus-only lanes, the changes will affect not only bus riders who will see routes added and dropped, but also drivers who compete with buses for space on city streets.
“The system we have in place now was developed over 30 years ago,” said John Catoe, deputy chief executive officer for the Los Angeles MTA. “What we want to do is to reduce the trip time for bus riders, by speeding buses along busy corridors and by having fewer transfers.”
The most immediate change is likely to be the exclusive bus lane that’s now in a trial run during rush hours on a 1.25-mile stretch of Wilshire Boulevard, between Federal Avenue and the Santa Monica city line.
The lane runs along the curb on each side of Wilshire; to accommodate the smooth bus service, parking, which had been permitted during rush hours, is now banned.
Last March, the MTA and the city of Los Angeles agreed to a six-month trial of the bus-only lane over the objections of local merchants who feared that removing parking spaces on Wilshire would cut into their business.
Despite some initial confusion, MTA staff is set to report the trial-run a success and recommend expansion of the lanes. If the board approves the expansion, new lanes could start appearing next year elsewhere on Wilshire and on other major streets.
“Not only are buses getting through that stretch much more quickly, but the overall traffic flow has been improved because the buses no longer have to weave in and out of traffic lanes,” Catoe said. “What’s more, we have found there have been fewer accidents along that stretch.”
The rush-hour bus-only lanes are also much cheaper to set up than dedicated busways, such as the $330 million Orange Line now under construction through the San Fernando Valley.
The total cost for the Wilshire pilot program was $160,000. Most of that was for the restriping of the street, the installation of warning signs and outreach efforts to local businesses and residents.
Other stretches of Wilshire are being considered for the expansion of the lanes.
Bus lane critics
Jean Shigematsu, vice president of community affairs for the West Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, says local business owners have lost foot traffic as a result of the elimination of parking spaces. “Our members are not happy with this at all, especially if it’s going to be made permanent,” Shigematsu said.
Another concern is traffic. Along other sections of Wilshire and many other streets in the region, parking is already prohibited during peak hours, so putting in bus-only lanes would take away a lane of traffic.
“The MTA’s original plan was to run this program along much of Wilshire Boulevard and we were concerned back then about taking away a lane of traffic,” said Jeff Spring, spokesman for the Automobile Club of Southern California. “We still feel this needs a very careful review before any further expansion takes place.”
Catoe said the MTA would work with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation and other local transit agencies to gauge the impacts before setting up additional bus-only lanes.
The group representing bus riders, though, is happy with the lanes.
“We really want to see more of these,” said Manuel Criollo, spokesman for the Bus Riders Union, an advocacy group. “The problem has been that until now, they’ve always taken the most expensive approach, making it a grade-separated lane, instead of the much more feasible re-striping of the road.”
Transit centers
While additional bus-only lanes could appear as early as next year, the overhaul of the bus-route system is at least two years off, Catoe said. A preliminary plan will likely go to the board later this year.
The goal is to realign the bus system to more closely follow bus-rider travel patterns and to reduce time-consuming transfers. Called Metro Connections, it would somewhat resemble the hub-and-spoke system that most domestic airlines follow at the nation’s airports.
The key to the overhaul is the setting up of 40 transit hubs throughout the county – 18 regional centers and 22 local ones. Each transit hub would have park-and-ride lots and many would offer amenities such as sandwich shops, bicycle lockers and waiting areas.
Most of the 18 regional hubs would be along major transit corridors like rail lines, Rapid Bus lines or already existing transit centers. “These regional hubs are meant to feed into high capacity corridors,” said MTA planner Nancy Micheli.
Some of the transit centers already exist, such as one in El Monte, another at the end of the Red Line in North Hollywood and one in downtown Santa Monica. Others are planned for areas already owned by the MTA, like a future Eastside rail station in East Los Angeles.
The remaining half-dozen regional centers would be in areas owned and operated by cities or local transit systems such as those in Santa Monica or Long Beach.
The local transit centers would be geared more to specific regions in the county, like the San Gabriel Valley, the South Bay, the Westside, or the mid-cities area southeast of downtown Los Angeles.
Few details of the plan have been released. “It all depends on how this is implemented,” Criollo said. “In some instances, this could be better for bus riders, if it actually means fewer transfers. But we’re concerned that this will be an excuse to actually cut bus service.”
Potential stumbling blocks could be neighborhood opposition to the building of the transit centers, as well as cooperation from the cities in the MTA network, said Dana Gabbard, executive secretary of Southern California Transit Advocates. But he added that the overall idea is sound.
“This could prove the spark for re-orienting the region towards mass transit, especially if it’s done in concert with smart zoning and smart growth,” he said.
Þ--Þ--Þ
PaulC
User ID: 8548253 Aug 2nd 12:37 AM
I'm still kind of skeptical about this, it sounds good, but I don’t know. What does everyone else think?
Paul
John
User ID: 9753653 Aug 2nd 8:15 AM
Yea! Sounds good! I hope the MTA will see to it that more lanes are taken away from private vehicle traffic, and that more parking space along curbs is cleared for bus transit.
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Aug 3rd 12:34 AM
I'd have to see specifics before I can agree that it is a good idea, but I am skeptical. If rail is the backbone of the hub and spoke system, that's all well and good, but the rail system is not widespread enough to do this.
User ID: 7852033 Feb 20th 6:09 AM
The Hub & Spoke project has been renamed "Metro Connections:
www.metro.net/board/Items/2004/02_February/20040219OPItem26.pdf
Dane
User ID: 1473814 Feb 20th 11:52 AM
I still prefer "Smoke and Mirrors", myself ;-)
Jerard
User ID: 0930774 Feb 20th 12:17 PM
I prefer Mini Curtiba
PaulC
User ID: 0269124 Feb 20th 9:23 PM
How about "This idea is a flop".
Paul
Robert
User ID: 2037954 Feb 20th 11:09 PM
If "Metro Connections" is planned, designed and integrated correctly, it would provide more efficient and better service for all. We see airlines doing this all the time, with direct flights on heavy traveled routes. This must be coordinated with Metrolink and all the other transit agencies in the region. Also, the bus and rail divisions within Metro must also talk to each other.
-=‡÷«±»÷‡=-
-=‡÷ßÔß÷‡=-
-=‡÷«†»÷‡=-
Brad
User ID: 9955583 Feb 21st 12:00 AM
Call me thick headed, but can anyone please give me an example of how this proposed Hub and Spoke system would actually work? Thanks!
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Feb 21st 12:54 AM
The way I see it, the rail system is the backbone, and the bus service provides the spokes outward from rail. It could work well if there was more rail, and I expect that the system is being designed with this in mind. My concern is not with the concept, but with its implementation. I expect that the MTA will create "HUBS" that are not at all destinations in their own right, but artificial spaces that are chosen for their convenience to the MTA.
Excellent hubs would be 7/Metro, Hollywood Vine, North Hollywood Red Lne Station, Del Mar Sattion, Union Station, Vermont/Wilshire, to name a few obvious choices. But the MTA has indicatd that it would choose to create hubs in places where lines converge, and its possible they would be in places that nobody would otherwise go. This is like a "separate but equal" system whereby transit riders would be forced to congregate where the hubs are and not where they want to go.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 2609274 Feb 21st 8:52 AM
Hub and spoke is Zev's Curitiba fetish crammed down the throats of riders.
Obviously it's touted as more convenient for passengers. Would any marketing professional say that hub and spoke is going to be inconvenient, forces more transfers and is only designed to imitate a Third World transit system for the sake of imitation?
MTA is destroying a route grid that does not need changing. The beauty of the system grid is that people are able to make transfers along the grid.
Airlines use hubs because they don't want to fly too many planes and provide a service grid. Leave it to them.
The best system for L.A. would be what I call a "spider web" network. I incorporated it into my RTD Plan (R, TM and C for route suggestions. When you see a spider web, you see an intricate pattern weaved of grids and nodes where the webs originate. The key components of the plan:
*Like hub and spoke, L.A.'s routing grid would have several transit centers. The goal is to have as many routes end at these centers as possible. Though unlike hub and spoke, L.A.'s one line on one street principle would remain, rather than having a high-frequency trunk line and a lower-frequency feeder.
*The bus routing involves destroying forced transfers that are holdovers from the streetcar days. This means there would be a single service on Pico, Western, Vermont, etc. (This involves MTA getting out of operations, grafting MTA routes with munis and turning over service to munis or new sub-regional companies.)
*The spider web relies on very long local lines. While the end-to-end lengths are long, these are done for grid purity and not necessarily because people will ride from one end to the other.
*Operationally, MTA would implement "dynamic scheduling" to maintain on-time service. Now, drivers operate routes based on a paddle. Under dynamic scheduling, a driver would end at a node, take a break and then get sent out on a line where he/she is needed to maintain service. This could mean that the driver may return on the original route, but most likely he/she would drive a different route. (See Kym's web site, www.transit-insider.org, under the "Dynamic Scheduling" thread for a better explanation.)
*The RTD would serve most of Southern California, much like the old RTD did. But the other agencies would still have autonomy, but there will be a single paint scheme, fare structure and line numbering plan.
I thought of the spider web based on my experiences as a rider and advocate. It suits L.A. because it focuses around how riders actually ride transit. The spider web allows riders to choose from several ways to get from point A to point B, depending on his/her preferences and moods. They can choose from the quickest trip, the fewest transfers, or the most direct route. (Don't worry, guys, I have an extensive rail component in the RTD Plan.) Riders choose what rail or bus lines they wish to ride.
Jerry
User ID: 9955583 Feb 21st 10:07 AM
I just hope they don't go changing route numbers again, because that's a big headache. I remember when the old RTD changed route numbers back in the late 70s or early 80s, it was really confusing. By that time route numbers had become synonymous and associated with actual street routes themselves. Therefore the Line 26,(replacement of the old P line streetcar), was synonymous with West Pico Bl./East 1st st.. Same held true with Line 83 and Wilshire Bl, Line 25 and Figueroa St., Line 6 and York Bl./Vermont Av. and Line 44/ West Beverly Bl.along with a host of other bus lines. Then came the renumbering process, from people who don't think twice about the actual people who use the bus system, that forced passengers to associate totally new route numbers with, in some cases new routes. I recall the complaints the following day when the new system kicked in. The most common complaint was to simply leave the route numbers, that everyone had come to associate with a particular street, alone. Now a few decades have passed and they are at it again. I just hope this time they leave the numbers alone even if they do decide to go with this Hub and Spoke system. It might not seem to be a very important thing to those who drive, but for people like myself who totally depend on public transit, number designations are very important and changing them from one day to the next can be a nightmare.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 2609274 Feb 22nd 8:57 AM
Jerry, are you actually knocking the line numbering system? How dare you?! :>
The line numbering system is one of the best things MTA has going for it. What makes our numbering system great is that there's an underlying logic to it, and it's very easy to understand. I'm assuming you know why routes are numbered the way they are.
But, there's even more logic behind the numbers. The 1-99 and 400-499 radiate counterclockwise from downtown L.A. Currently, it begins with 2 on Sunset, and works its way around to 96 on Riverside Drive. We don't have many express routes anymore, but if you remember the days when we were teeming with them, the radii began with 401 on the Pasadena Freeway to (now-Foothill) 499 on the 10 freeway to the San Gabriel Valley.
It's also great because knowing the line numbers can also help you find yourself in L.A. If you memorize route numbers, you could easily track the major arterials.
Any change brings about confusion. Changing route numbers is no different. But, only busfans still refer to old route numbers before the Great Renumbering. So, the confusion wears off, and even you have to admit that our numbering system is much better over the old (which were just adopting streetcar numbers).
If you want to know what is confusion, try a bus system with number-letter combinations for routing nomenclature. I have no trouble with X, as that is an express route. I'm also keen on smaller bus systems that divide routes into N/S and E/W. But some systems use A/B/C to indicate branches, while some give random letters to determine what part of town it goes to. Now, take a highly logical scheme like what L.A. has. (Las Vegas has an identical scheme, but the numbers have the opposite designations.) Then compare it to some of the worst offenders, WMATA (Washington DC) and PAT (Pittsburgh). WMATA has so many combinations, and in some cases letters preceding the numbers, that it's like trying to crack into computer code. And Pittsburgh actually has number-letter pairs where the routes do not branch off one another. (Say, 1A and 1B might run to the same suburb, but they use completely different streets and may not even touch each other.)
To those systems, let me point them to an invention called the electronic headsign. These wonderful gizmos let agencies program lines of up to four digits (three numbers plus a letter suffix), and there's a keypad so that all the information comes up instantly, rather than having to spool through line numbers and destinations. So, letter-number combinations are no longer needed or useful. While they're at it, they should take the time to develop a logical route numbering system and tailor it to the kind of service they provide.
PaulC
User ID: 0269124 Feb 22nd 11:07 AM
Why did MTA do away with so many express buses?
Paul
Henry
User ID: 0575574 Feb 22nd 11:07 PM
MTA did away with express buses because they are not efficient to run. The cost per passenger is higher because the passengers have their butts in the seats longer. MTA never did a good job at serving customers as well as LADOT and Foothill did, and their buses were in worse shape than LADOT and Foothill. Also, the rail system has gradually replaced the bus system.
One way where the letters would be useful is to indicate connections to the rail lines. It would also make those letters that the rail lines be more useful. So, for instance, instead of having the 686, which tells us nothing about where the bus is, you might have the 86C. I would envision the rail feeders with this nomenclature, and for the rail feeders, I would print the rail connection times with the bus schedule (rail schedules don't change that often anyway). This would further integrate rail and bus.
So, any bus line that has timed connections with the rail line would take the letter designation. This would quickly eliminate most of the 600 lines, which are a scourge on the numbering system. Then some of the buses that are clearly rail feeders (or should have schedule to be modified as such), as the now 20D (120), 2B (202), 66A (166), and 64C (264) would be renumbered to this system. This would also promote rail and bus as an integrated system. Major lines that serve multiple rail lines, as well as those who operate independently of rail, would not be renumbered.
Cliffj
User ID: 7893693 Feb 23rd 12:31 AM
Then some of the buses that are clearly rail feeders (or should have schedule to be modified as such), as the now 20D (120), 2B (202), 66A (166), and 64C (264) would be renumbered to this system. This would also promote rail and bus as an integrated system.
So Henry, are you saying that if the MTA decided to promote that hideous system of officially calling our color named rail ID system the little used alphabet name system (A,B,C,D etc), the bus lines that feed into these rail lines would also carry those same letters to identify what rail lines they feed into? (breathe) Well, I can see how that would be an excellent idea IF their were more rail lines criss-crossing the city, even if it's just the number of lines proposed in the 'dream-line' threads. Otherwise, with the current bus grid, I don't see the point.
Chris Ledermuller
User ID: 2609274 Feb 23rd 6:54 AM
These are my personal opinions, and they may be too intense for some readers.
NO, NO, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS. Do not revert to the perplexing letter-number system. And the idea of affixing letters to existing bus lines is as bad as Pittsburgh.
A 66A for 166? First, 66A will not run into downtown. Second, 66A is miles away from Eighth Street and East Olympic Boulevard, a busy line in central L.A. And 20A for 120? Imperial Highway is about 12 miles south of Wilshire.
Second, the only people who like rail feeders are planners. They don't want to see their rail lines fail, so they want to shunt as many trips onto trains as possible. L.A. doesn't have this problem. Hell, we can get people to ride the Green Line on their own. And, one of the best things about L.A.'s rail lines are that the stations are planned around the street grids. If you look at most systems, urban rail stations are islands of seclusion, with no connection to the street or necessarily to their neighborhoods. With L.A., you have stations that are connected to streets, so that means that buses can stop near the station and continue on their normal route. The bus and rail still "feed" passengers into each other, without making routes solely to feed into the rail system.
Oh, and one more thing about rail-bus integration: the integration is pretty darn good now. Bus and rail fares are the same. (Some systems like San Diego and Boston charge different fares for rail and buses). MTA makes sure the stations are connected with bus service. (Remember that MTA does not have the power to force munis to do anything. They can choose to serve stations if they wish). Also, MTA is good about informing passengers of connecting buses at stations and what rail lines bus lines serve.
And Henry makes a good point on why express bus services are largely gone. One, they aren't efficient because they make few stops. Two, it requires a large number of buses to be idle during off-peak hours. Three, unless an express route was a branch of a local trunk (like 442 is a branch of 40), it means you must have a large number of extra board and split run drivers to work during rush hours for a unique line (this is a bone of contention during collective bargaining). Four, express buses had no competitive advantage. They'd be stuck on freeways with cars, and once HOV lanes were built, former riders switched to carpooling. Five, when MTA had to cut service, it cut express lines because it had the fewest riders. Six, and this is the one that shames the Reason Foundation, when a rail line opens and serves a similar corridor, rail attracts more people than the express buses ever could or did.
PForce
User ID: 0247944 Feb 25th 5:22 PM
Using the "Metro Trip Planner" to go from Venice to meet my brother-in-law at the Veterans Affairs Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, I got the following response:
Go to SW corner of Windward Ave/Main St (Venice)
a. Take Santa Monica #1 East at 8:14 a.m.
b. Get off at Hilgard Ave/Westholme Ave (Westwood) at 9:01.
Go to take Metro Rapid 761 North at 9:13 a.m.
Go to SE corner of Hilgard Ave/Westholme Ave (Westwood)
a. Take Metro Rapid 761 North (Lakeview Terrace) at 9:13 a.m.
b. Use transfer
c. Get off at Van Nuys Blvd/Roscoe Blvd at 9:58 a.m.
Go to NE corner of Van Nuys Blvd/Roscoe Blvd
a. Take Metro Bus 167 North ("NO RECD FOR THIS LINE") AT 10:10 A.M.
b. Pay $1.25 (Monthly Pass $52)
c. Get off at Veterans Hosp/bldg 22 (Plummer and Haskell) at 10:26 a.m.
Total Cost: $2.25
Estimated Travel Time: 2 Hours 12 Minutes
Good thing I'm not a disabled vet. I think I'll drive, as much as I detest long drives.
Henry
User ID: 9614573 Feb 25th 9:34 PM
The letter number system does reinforce the rail system. Of course, to avoid passenger confusion, the rail feeders would be renumbered somehow to avoid duplicating the two-digit numbers with existing lines. And yes, more rail lines would be necessary. My dream system has A through H. No lines would be deliberately restructured, but already you have several dozen lines that begin or end at rail stations and could be called rail feeders. The low frequency lines could be re-timed to have layovers at rail stations. For instance, most of the lines in the Valley that serve the Red Line stations could be renumbered. So too lines like the 125, 126, 130, 255, 264, and 267.
The idea missed here is that the rail schedules would be INCLUDED IN BUS SCHEDULES as part of the letter-number concept. This is similar to MBTA in Boston, which lists commuter rail connection times, or County Connection in Walnut Creek, which lists BART arrival and departure times.
To answer Chris's point, while some stations are integrated well with the urban fabric, there are many examples, like all the Green Line stations, North Hollywood and Universal City Red Line stations, and the Artesia Blue Line station that are just stations with moats of parking around them.
Bart Reed
User ID: 1606604 Aug 2nd 12:02 AM
Los Angeles Business Journal: Monday, Aug. 2, 2004
MTA Rolling Out Plan to Overhaul City Bus Routes
By HOWARD FINE
Staff Reporter
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority plans to propose a sweeping overhaul of its bus-route system and expand the use of bus-only lanes on crowded city streets.
Later this month, transit officials are set to roll out a plan to build dozens of transit hubs throughout the county. Bus routes that are now laid out in a grid system would gradually be realigned to connect to these hubs.
Along with the expanded bus-only lanes, the changes will affect not only bus riders who will see routes added and dropped, but also drivers who compete with buses for space on city streets.
“The system we have in place now was developed over 30 years ago,” said John Catoe, deputy chief executive officer for the Los Angeles MTA. “What we want to do is to reduce the trip time for bus riders, by speeding buses along busy corridors and by having fewer transfers.”
The most immediate change is likely to be the exclusive bus lane that’s now in a trial run during rush hours on a 1.25-mile stretch of Wilshire Boulevard, between Federal Avenue and the Santa Monica city line.
The lane runs along the curb on each side of Wilshire; to accommodate the smooth bus service, parking, which had been permitted during rush hours, is now banned.
Last March, the MTA and the city of Los Angeles agreed to a six-month trial of the bus-only lane over the objections of local merchants who feared that removing parking spaces on Wilshire would cut into their business.
Despite some initial confusion, MTA staff is set to report the trial-run a success and recommend expansion of the lanes. If the board approves the expansion, new lanes could start appearing next year elsewhere on Wilshire and on other major streets.
“Not only are buses getting through that stretch much more quickly, but the overall traffic flow has been improved because the buses no longer have to weave in and out of traffic lanes,” Catoe said. “What’s more, we have found there have been fewer accidents along that stretch.”
The rush-hour bus-only lanes are also much cheaper to set up than dedicated busways, such as the $330 million Orange Line now under construction through the San Fernando Valley.
The total cost for the Wilshire pilot program was $160,000. Most of that was for the restriping of the street, the installation of warning signs and outreach efforts to local businesses and residents.
Other stretches of Wilshire are being considered for the expansion of the lanes.
Bus lane critics
Jean Shigematsu, vice president of community affairs for the West Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, says local business owners have lost foot traffic as a result of the elimination of parking spaces. “Our members are not happy with this at all, especially if it’s going to be made permanent,” Shigematsu said.
Another concern is traffic. Along other sections of Wilshire and many other streets in the region, parking is already prohibited during peak hours, so putting in bus-only lanes would take away a lane of traffic.
“The MTA’s original plan was to run this program along much of Wilshire Boulevard and we were concerned back then about taking away a lane of traffic,” said Jeff Spring, spokesman for the Automobile Club of Southern California. “We still feel this needs a very careful review before any further expansion takes place.”
Catoe said the MTA would work with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation and other local transit agencies to gauge the impacts before setting up additional bus-only lanes.
The group representing bus riders, though, is happy with the lanes.
“We really want to see more of these,” said Manuel Criollo, spokesman for the Bus Riders Union, an advocacy group. “The problem has been that until now, they’ve always taken the most expensive approach, making it a grade-separated lane, instead of the much more feasible re-striping of the road.”
Transit centers
While additional bus-only lanes could appear as early as next year, the overhaul of the bus-route system is at least two years off, Catoe said. A preliminary plan will likely go to the board later this year.
The goal is to realign the bus system to more closely follow bus-rider travel patterns and to reduce time-consuming transfers. Called Metro Connections, it would somewhat resemble the hub-and-spoke system that most domestic airlines follow at the nation’s airports.
The key to the overhaul is the setting up of 40 transit hubs throughout the county – 18 regional centers and 22 local ones. Each transit hub would have park-and-ride lots and many would offer amenities such as sandwich shops, bicycle lockers and waiting areas.
Most of the 18 regional hubs would be along major transit corridors like rail lines, Rapid Bus lines or already existing transit centers. “These regional hubs are meant to feed into high capacity corridors,” said MTA planner Nancy Micheli.
Some of the transit centers already exist, such as one in El Monte, another at the end of the Red Line in North Hollywood and one in downtown Santa Monica. Others are planned for areas already owned by the MTA, like a future Eastside rail station in East Los Angeles.
The remaining half-dozen regional centers would be in areas owned and operated by cities or local transit systems such as those in Santa Monica or Long Beach.
The local transit centers would be geared more to specific regions in the county, like the San Gabriel Valley, the South Bay, the Westside, or the mid-cities area southeast of downtown Los Angeles.
Few details of the plan have been released. “It all depends on how this is implemented,” Criollo said. “In some instances, this could be better for bus riders, if it actually means fewer transfers. But we’re concerned that this will be an excuse to actually cut bus service.”
Potential stumbling blocks could be neighborhood opposition to the building of the transit centers, as well as cooperation from the cities in the MTA network, said Dana Gabbard, executive secretary of Southern California Transit Advocates. But he added that the overall idea is sound.
“This could prove the spark for re-orienting the region towards mass transit, especially if it’s done in concert with smart zoning and smart growth,” he said.
Þ--Þ--Þ
PaulC
User ID: 8548253 Aug 2nd 12:37 AM
I'm still kind of skeptical about this, it sounds good, but I don’t know. What does everyone else think?
Paul
John
User ID: 9753653 Aug 2nd 8:15 AM
Yea! Sounds good! I hope the MTA will see to it that more lanes are taken away from private vehicle traffic, and that more parking space along curbs is cleared for bus transit.
Bert G
User ID: 8841313 Aug 3rd 12:34 AM
I'd have to see specifics before I can agree that it is a good idea, but I am skeptical. If rail is the backbone of the hub and spoke system, that's all well and good, but the rail system is not widespread enough to do this.