|
Post by bzcat on Sept 16, 2011 11:51:39 GMT -8
The occasional SRO conditions are aggravated by, if not caused by, the service segregation. What we really need is a bus lane. The bunching on Local 7 is not a new problem. It existed before there was a Rapid 7 and it's not affected by the Rapid 7 schedule either. During rush hour, it is common to wait 40 minutes for a bus and then see 4 or 5 of them show up at the same time. This is due to traffic congestion, and not the existence of a Rapid service. Pico really needs a bus lane. Both Rapid and Local 7 are packed so it's silly to debate the Rapid vs Local issue... both service are finding plenty of riders.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Sept 16, 2011 13:16:31 GMT -8
The occasional SRO conditions are aggravated by, if not caused by, the service segregation. What we really need is a bus lane. The bunching on Local 7 is not a new problem. It existed before there was a Rapid 7 and it's not affected by the Rapid 7 schedule either. During rush hour, it is common to wait 40 minutes for a bus and then see 4 or 5 of them show up at the same time. This is due to traffic congestion, and not the existence of a Rapid service. Pico really needs a bus lane. Both Rapid and Local 7 are packed so it's silly to debate the Rapid vs Local issue... both service are finding plenty of riders. It is anything but silly. Someone needs to bell the cat. It took Metro several years and millions of wasted dollars to acknowledge the crime that took place on Manchester with the Rapid 715's 3.1 mile no-service zone. The situation on Pico is similar - instead of solving the problem with the Local 7, BBB decided to go with better marketing and declare victory with the Rapid expansion. The two services aren't "packed". On my short trip two miles down Pico and parking this morning, I observed a total of 8 Rapids, of which 2 had passengers - and no Locals. You can dismiss that as bunching, but the looks on the faces of those waiting for the Locals tell a different story. As I think has been suggested before, we seem to exist in different realms. I don't know how you can miss what I observe daily.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 16, 2011 14:07:29 GMT -8
I agree this shouldn't be local versus rapid. That both the local and rapid are standing room only states that this corridor needs even more service and would be an excellent candidate for a bus-only lane.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 16, 2011 15:18:33 GMT -8
The two services aren't "packed". On my short trip two miles down Pico and parking this morning, I observed a total of 8 Rapids, of which 2 had passengers - and no Locals. You can dismiss that as bunching, but the looks on the faces of those waiting for the Locals tell a different story. As I think has been suggested before, we seem to exist in different realms. I don't know how you can miss what I observe daily. Wait a tick. If you are saying 8 Rapids went by and only 2 of those had passengers.......so doesn't that mean the other 6 were going to/from the Yard? So how is that even comparable? Sometimes I'm standing at 9th/Hope in downtown LA and I see like five 66 buses pass empty but that's because they're going to the Metro bus yard. That's not comparing apples to apples. You're implying the other 6 Rapids were in service, so that it's 8 Rapids v. 0 Locals. Whereas, in reality, it was 2 Rapids v. 0 Locals. Hardly looks to be extreme mis-service.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 16, 2011 15:31:26 GMT -8
Did we not just take away Local 7 service, forcing many patrons to walk an extra 6-12 blocks per trip, in favor of the glorious "Rapid" service? Now that the damage is done, you're suggesting to add 15 minutes in the middle of the route? Please give me an example of somebody now having to walk an extra 6 - 12 blocks for wanting new enhanced Rapid service v. the Local service (that just got bumped 5 - 10 minutes per the new schedules on weekday rush hour service only). I would love to know the exact street intersections. I'm just making sure we're not making empty claims to create anger and hatred to BBB. It would be sketchy if somehow new Rapid service (that was ironically in place prior to the schedule shake-ups) is changing somebody's walk schedule because buses come 5 - 10 minutes later in rush hours than previous. The only situation this makes sense was the removal of Pico/Beverly. But otherwise, everything else should stay constant.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Sept 16, 2011 19:10:18 GMT -8
I think some of you guys are getting hung up on rapid vs local -- that's not what I'm trying to point out.
Right now the rapid and local don't really work together because of the varying length in trips -- it's nearly impossible (yes a bus lane would help, but let us focus on what we have currently). This causes some trips to have too much capacity or too little and bunching, which is wasteful. Good vehicle spacing is important to running good service.
So.. for trips around 4-5pm the running time for local 7 is scheduled for ~67 minutes eastbound, the rapid for a full trip has ~80 minutes runtime. For the sake of simplicity we'll assume westbound runtime is the same. We'll add 15% for recovery time to the runtime, so now local 7 takes ~77 minutes, the rapid ~92.
When multiplied by 2 then divided by the current headway of roughly every 12 minutes for the local and 15 for the rapid you get a total of 13 buses for each route. By the way, don't get crazy here, this is an example -- the real service may have more or less buses scheduled for service but I haven't bothered to ask my colleagues over at Big Blue Bus about it..?
So with these uneven headways we get poorly distributed service, some service could be appearing at the same time (which is bad!) or as frequent as 6-7 minutes where the services are duplicated. But now let us think about the 3.1 mile stretch where service could be every 12 minutes.
If you ran one line the entire length and say it added only 5 minutes of runtime and used all 26 buses you could achieve a headway of ~7-8 minutes on the entire route for every stop. See how that's better service? It also adds capacity because now people can take any bus instead of making choices, which increases churn.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Sept 16, 2011 23:54:14 GMT -8
The two services aren't "packed". On my short trip two miles down Pico and parking this morning, I observed a total of 8 Rapids, of which 2 had passengers - and no Locals. You can dismiss that as bunching, but the looks on the faces of those waiting for the Locals tell a different story. As I think has been suggested before, we seem to exist in different realms. I don't know how you can miss what I observe daily. Wait a tick. If you are saying 8 Rapids went by and only 2 of those had passengers.......so doesn't that mean the other 6 were going to/from the Yard? So how is that even comparable? Sometimes I'm standing at 9th/Hope in downtown LA and I see like five 66 buses pass empty but that's because they're going to the Metro bus yard. That's not comparing apples to apples. You're implying the other 6 Rapids were in service, so that it's 8 Rapids v. 0 Locals. Whereas, in reality, it was 2 Rapids v. 0 Locals. Hardly looks to be extreme mis-service. Nope. They were in service. I'd agree and not characterize it as extreme mis-service. Rather, I think it reflects that the service level at that hour on Friday far exceeds any passenger demand - for Rapid service. SMC's Friday load is substantially lower than the rest of the week - and declining (ahem) rapidly as junior college students drop classes.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 19, 2011 15:20:16 GMT -8
I think some of you guys are getting hung up on rapid vs local -- that's not what I'm trying to point out. I agree but I think someone who has an axe to grind about any thing Rapid disagrees. Ok, this I understand Ok, I'm still with you on the concept but I have to ask... if Local 7 is already experiencing severe bunching with 12 minute headways, what would 6 minute headway achieve? It's only better service if you assume buses would stick to schedule and not bunch. The problem on Pico is traffic congestion so increasing headways won't achieve better or more reliable service. The advantage of Rapid on Pico is that it makes fewer stop (yes, I said that) so the overall run time is shorter between 2 fixed points. Given the bunching is inevitable, the ability to choose between stop every block and delay by red lights vs. stop every mile or so becomes a valuable one. I know someone will disagree vehemently with me but I think bus riders on this corridor have spoken, and they like Rapid 7.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 19, 2011 15:33:56 GMT -8
As I think has been suggested before, we seem to exist in different realms. I don't know how you can miss what I observe daily. Because you are the only one who observe these things. Rapid 7 is not *new*. It started years ago as Super 7 when it was only one-direction and it was packed. When it converted to Rapid 7 with 40 ft buses during peak hours, they were full. Now we have 60 ft buses and all day running, all of a sudden the buses are empty? We are not stupid and your hyperbole is tiresome. The only difference between Rapid 7 now and a month ago is now the service operates all day long. I will concede that perhaps not that many people ride Rapid 7 at 11 AM. But there is no need to insult our intelligence with claims of 8 empty buses and what not. It just simply not true. I take Rapid 7 (only during morning and evening rush hour) and I have NEVER EVER been on an empty bus.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Sept 19, 2011 17:13:27 GMT -8
It's only better service if you assume buses would stick to schedule and not bunch. The problem on Pico is traffic congestion so increasing headways won't achieve better or more reliable service. The advantage of Rapid on Pico is that it makes fewer stop (yes, I said that) so the overall run time is shorter between 2 fixed points. Given the bunching is inevitable, the ability to choose between stop every block and delay by red lights vs. stop every mile or so becomes a valuable one. I know someone will disagree vehemently with me but I think bus riders on this corridor have spoken, and they like Rapid 7. Yes, buses will indeed get bunched -- but I would argue that you'd rather it be on the same line than with two different services right? You want a maximum potential to board a bus, if you're waiting on a local and it's bunched but rapids pass you by then that's a missed opportunity to have been picked up and get on your way.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 20, 2011 8:35:35 GMT -8
The only situation this makes sense was the removal of Pico/Beverly. But otherwise, everything else should stay constant. Well, that makes a pretty long stretch between Westwood and Robertson where several people no longer have the option of "walking" to a Rapid stop so they are stuck taking the increasingly packed local. That's not an argument against the Rapid, just a call for increased local service. I ride this corridor every day and BOTH the local and rapid are packed. I'm just glad there is no longer the forced transfer at Pico-Rimpau
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 20, 2011 9:52:43 GMT -8
Yes, buses will indeed get bunched -- but I would argue that you'd rather it be on the same line than with two different services right? You want a maximum potential to board a bus, if you're waiting on a local and it's bunched but rapids pass you by then that's a missed opportunity to have been picked up and get on your way. Yes, if we only look at the time waiting for Local in this specific case, you can make an argument for an unified service. But I could make just as a compelling case for continued separate service on the grounds of significant time savings for someone traveling from Downtown Santa Monica to Westwood Blvd (e.g. me) or SMC to Rimpau. At the end of the day, the 2 services target different commute patterns and I know I much rather take the Rapid than Local for my specific commute. The only downside is people in the no-service zone... It sucks for those people to see Rapids pass by. But for the majority of long(er) distance riders, Rapid's value is self evident.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Sept 20, 2011 19:30:56 GMT -8
Yes, buses will indeed get bunched -- but I would argue that you'd rather it be on the same line than with two different services right? You want a maximum potential to board a bus, if you're waiting on a local and it's bunched but rapids pass you by then that's a missed opportunity to have been picked up and get on your way. Yes, if we only look at the time waiting for Local in this specific case, you can make an argument for an unified service. But I could make just as a compelling case for continued separate service on the grounds of significant time savings for someone traveling from Downtown Santa Monica to Westwood Blvd (e.g. me) or SMC to Rimpau. At the end of the day, the 2 services target different commute patterns and I know I much rather take the Rapid than Local for my specific commute. The only downside is people in the no-service zone... It sucks for those people to see Rapids pass by. But for the majority of long(er) distance riders, Rapid's value is self evident. The run time difference between the local and rapid between downtown and rimpau is only 5 minutes.. So I the speed increase argument seems a bit weak to me.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Sept 20, 2011 21:36:37 GMT -8
Yes, buses will indeed get bunched -- but I would argue that you'd rather it be on the same line than with two different services right? You want a maximum potential to board a bus, if you're waiting on a local and it's bunched but rapids pass you by then that's a missed opportunity to have been picked up and get on your way. Yes, if we only look at the time waiting for Local in this specific case, you can make an argument for an unified service. But I could make just as a compelling case for continued separate service on the grounds of significant time savings for someone traveling from Downtown Santa Monica to Westwood Blvd (e.g. me) or SMC to Rimpau. At the end of the day, the 2 services target different commute patterns and I know I much rather take the Rapid than Local for my specific commute. The only downside is people in the no-service zone... It sucks for those people to see Rapids pass by. But for the majority of long(er) distance riders, Rapid's value is self evident. More like Big Blue's marketing campaign is effective at convincing the a segment of the bus riding demographic that they're privileged elites worthy of special treatment. I won't assign that to every rider, obviously. A few actually compute their travel times, and perhaps live/work at geographically-convenient locations, and might save a few minutes via the "Rapid" service. But I've overheard enough over the years - the same subgroup bragging about their "4G" phone, their 150 channel cable package "for only $19 a month" and other hype, I've heard boasting with pride, "I'm going to get on that Rapid" - even if a local bus is present and the Rapid is AWOL - as if they've been trained. The performance advantage credited to BB Rapid is barely measurable, and only on end-to-end trips. Rapids *could* show significantly better run-times, if they were so allowed and enabled, but that isn't going to happen, and so long as they're effectively as slow as locals, we should not have a two-tier system just to give management and politicians [false] bragging rights. Better to focus on bus lanes and signal priority, use the existing 7 fleet to run on 5-minute headways, lose the schedule, and give the benefit of increased service levels to everyone. I was promised that Big Blue would review the 7 boarding data, and specifically not assume, as some here apparently do, that ridership counts as an endorsement or preference. At the Rapid stops I used a year to two years ago (mostly Lincoln@Pico, sometimes SMC), I observed that many riders simply chose the first available bus, or the least crowded/non-SRO. [Note that my criticisms are specific to the Pico run. Other routes, particularly MTA routes, may be longer and fasterer enough to show greater benefit from discriminatory service levels. I would still have entertained the initial thread topic - an MTA Rapid 730 running the length of Pico from Ocean to Main/Grand/Olive, as it would actually give a boost to the "long distance" riders you mention, who instead still have to transfer at Rimpau.]
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 21, 2011 10:40:33 GMT -8
I agree Rapid 7 would be largely redundant if there is a bus lane on Pico, and I also agree that a single Metro 730 would have been the a better solution. But I think your condescending derision of Rapid riders as privileged elites doesn't add anything to this discussion. It says more about your perceived bias than anything else. It shows up consistently in all your posting on the subject about anything to do with Rapids and it is offensive. If you want to have an actual discussion about improving bus service on Pico, let do that. I'm just tired of reading your class warfare manifesto and hyperbole on outlandish claims of consecutive empty Rapid buses.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 23, 2011 8:52:19 GMT -8
I was riding the Local 7 this morning when an angry older gentleman started saying very loudly to anyone who would hear:
- "They are treating us like animals making us stand. (someone had given him their seat - although we were stuffed in like sardines.) My rapid stop (Beverly/Pico) has been eliminated and now I am twenty minutes late for work every day. I called the Big Blue Bus and no one can tell me why. We all need to write the Mayor of Santa Monica!"
- Another woman said to him, "they've written off this corridor."
They complained about the rapids getting the longer buses while they were standing.
Granted, no changes in service will make everyone happy, but perhaps the Big Blue Bus could provide some articulated buses for the Local 7, which might at least reduce the crowding on the Local 7, even if they cannot at this time provide additional buses.
Again, I'm not trying to pit local riders versus rapid riders. I support both, plus transit only lanes.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 23, 2011 10:50:04 GMT -8
The peak hour Local 7 can use the 60ft buses for sure. It get's plenty crowded. But I seem to recall the reason they eliminated Rapid 7 Beverly/Pico stop was due to the fact that 60ft bus would be too long and may block intersection at this location. Surely that would also apply to Local 7 as well.
The big no-service zone for Rapid 7 is definitely something BBB needs to solve.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 26, 2011 8:05:21 GMT -8
Things are getting UGLY on the Local 7.
The bus was late and stuffed to capacity. The driver stopped letting people on. People were unsafely standing in the front area and were so stuffed and so behind this morning, that the same little old man from Friday. who was pressed up against the front of the bus was shouting, "We are taxpayers. We are not animals. We don't have to be treated this way. Write a letter, make a phone call."
Not only was everyone late, the people who couldn't board the bus will this be even later for work. This is people's bread and butter here. BBB needs to do something.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 26, 2011 8:44:05 GMT -8
Things are getting UGLY on the Local 7. The bus was late and stuffed to capacity. The driver stopped letting people on. People were unsafely standing in the front area and were so stuffed and so behind this morning, that the same little old man from Friday. who was pressed up against the front of the bus was shouting, "We are taxpayers. We are not animals. We don't have to be treated this way. Write a letter, make a phone call." Not only was everyone late, the people who couldn't board the bus will this be even later for work. This is people's bread and butter here. BBB needs to do something. The Rapid 7 is just as packed as the Local 7. Each time I board the Rapid 7 at Pico/Bundy, I'm asked to use the rear doors to enter because the front is too packed. Again, we're veering back to Local v. Rapid debate on these comments, when the true problem is a lack of acceptable service on both the Rapid & Local 7 Lines. Increasing frequencies would be the answer, but jeopardizing the Rapid 7 service (which seems to be the intent of some people on the board here) is not the answer. BBB needs to increase frequency, that's the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 26, 2011 8:55:20 GMT -8
Things are getting UGLY on the Local 7. The bus was late and stuffed to capacity. The driver stopped letting people on. People were unsafely standing in the front area and were so stuffed and so behind this morning, that the same little old man from Friday. who was pressed up against the front of the bus was shouting, "We are taxpayers. We are not animals. We don't have to be treated this way. Write a letter, make a phone call." Not only was everyone late, the people who couldn't board the bus will this be even later for work. This is people's bread and butter here. BBB needs to do something. Again, we're veering back to Local v. Rapid debate on these comments, when the true problem is a lack of acceptable service on both the Rapid & Local 7 Lines. I didn't say anything against the Rapid. Pointing out that the local service is now appalling is not itself a criticism of the Rapid, which I think should be extended even more to Vermont/Wilshire to allow a one-seat transfer to/from the Red Line. However, I can report that some riders on the Local 7 are blaming their plight on the new Rapid 7 and are stating that to Big Blue Bus. That is NOT my opinion, but it exists, and it exists loudly.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 26, 2011 9:11:56 GMT -8
I didn't say anything against the Rapid. Pointing out that the local service is now appalling is not itself a criticism of the Rapid, which I think should be extended even more to Vermont/Wilshire to allow a one-seat transfer to/from the Red Line. However, I can report that some riders on the Local 7 are blaming their plight on the new Rapid 7 and are stating that to Big Blue Bus. That is NOT my opinion, but it exists, and it exists loudly. I didn't mean this as a criticism against you. Somehow providing faster transit service is looked as "serving the rich", whereas providing lower quality transit service is "serving the poor". Do we not allow the poor or disenfranchised on the Rapids or Metro rail (same criticism applies to Metro rail)? Do the poor not want faster service? Those "poor" people on the Wilshire corridor I guarantee would much rather be on a subway than on the Rapid 720....sorry, I mean Local 20 as they do not qualify for Rapid 720 status. It's just upsetting that people look at Rapid service and think that's the reason to blame for worse Local service. Rapids move far more people at faster speeds. There's more demand to travel to major corridors, not really the Yales, 22nd streets, Berkeley, La Grange, (Local stops) etc.. streets. Remember how the BBB 13 was to be cancelled? I think BBB should have moved forward with the cancellation, so that more resources could have been available for additional service on the Rapid and Local 7's. Serving such a small amount of riders on BBB 13 and sacrificing better service on the 7 was a mistake. But because few people call the race card, BBB has to run such a money losing route. So unfortuanate.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 26, 2011 9:35:03 GMT -8
I agree with what you are saying. Rapid service can be a quality of life improvement as it reduces the time spent traveling.
However, the problem with cancelling the Big Blue Bus 13 in its entirety is that this is the only route that maids and housekeepers use to access Cheviot Hills.
Cancelling this service entirely means they cannot get to their jobs and there is not an alternative in this case. With reductions of the service to hourly, the Local 13 is now full at Pico/Fairfax in the morning.
I cannot help but think that Phase 2 of Expo is going to bring lots of healthy changes to all of the travel patters in this area assuming it makes it here within four years.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 26, 2011 10:24:48 GMT -8
I think the solution to Local 7 is bigger buses, not more frequencies. The bus already bunch at peak rush hour so adding more headways just means more uneven loads. What BBB needs to do is figure out how to use the 60ft bus on Local 7 (and figure out a way to restore Beverly/Pico Rapid 7 stop).
I wrote to BBB a few weeks ago with a similar issue on Lincoln Blvd. The Rapid 3 are arriving at Lincoln/Pico already beyond capacity and skipping that key stop. They need to rotate the 60ft buses to more service.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Sept 26, 2011 10:26:06 GMT -8
Guys, there is almost no time savings between the Rapid vs Local for most trips.. look at the timetables...
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 26, 2011 10:32:54 GMT -8
I agree with what you are saying. Rapid service can be a quality of life improvement as it reduces the time spent traveling. However, the problem with cancelling the Big Blue Bus 13 in its entirety is that this is the only route that maids and housekeepers use to access Cheviot Hills. Cancelling this service entirely means they cannot get to their jobs and there is not an alternative in this case. With reductions of the service to hourly, the Local 13 is now full at Pico/Fairfax in the morning. I cannot help but think that Phase 2 of Expo is going to bring lots of healthy changes to all of the travel patters in this area assuming it makes it here within four years. BBB13 had good passenger load but it is a very expensive service to operate. I was not in favor of canceling this service for the reason you just mentioned but I see dropping down to hourly service as a reasonable compromise for now. The real solution to access to Cheviot Hills in the future is some sort of DASH service that runs in a loop between Palms Expo station - Motor - Pico Blvd - Beverwil - Robertson - National - and back to Palms Expo station.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 26, 2011 20:15:42 GMT -8
I didn't say anything against the Rapid. Pointing out that the local service is now appalling is not itself a criticism of the Rapid, which I think should be extended even more to Vermont/Wilshire to allow a one-seat transfer to/from the Red Line. Dan, I know you keep repeating that you are not against the Rapid (even though others you meet on the bus are against it), but when you write a blog post with a heading as you have, it does appear the issue is Rapid v. Local. ridethepinkline.blogspot.com/2011/09/has-big-blue-bus-local-7-been-thrown.htmlThe heading itself can be misconstrued to be pitting Local v. Rapid; eventhough I can tell you are just upset about the overall service frequency and volume on the corridor (outside of the Rapid 7 not going to Wilshire/Vermont).
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 27, 2011 9:46:04 GMT -8
I think the solution to Local 7 is bigger buses, not more frequencies. The bus already bunch at peak rush hour so adding more headways just means more uneven loads. What BBB needs to do is figure out how to use the 60ft bus on Local 7 (and figure out a way to restore Beverly/Pico Rapid 7 stop). I wrote to BBB a few weeks ago with a similar issue on Lincoln Blvd. The Rapid 3 are arriving at Lincoln/Pico already beyond capacity and skipping that key stop. They need to rotate the 60ft buses to more service. And that Lincoln/Pico stop is a major transfer point between the Local/Rapid 7 and the Local/Rapid 3.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 29, 2011 4:14:37 GMT -8
And that Lincoln/Pico stop is a major transfer point between the Local/Rapid 7 and the Local/Rapid 3. It's also the main stop for Santa Monica High School.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 7, 2011 10:49:36 GMT -8
I noticed this week that a few of the 60ft buses appear to have been withdrawn from service (e.g. 5300 and 5301 have been missing all week) and 40ft buses are back in scheduled rotation on Rapid 7. I'm not sure what this means...
One explanation may be they are removing the "Rapid" decal on some buses to prep them for local service. Keep an eye on this development.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 27, 2012 9:57:36 GMT -8
I just got an email from BBB...
They are adding R7 stop in both direction at Ave of The Stars in Century City effective from Monday 2/13/12. This is a huge win for commuters in Century City!
The R7 will now connect directly to end of Purple line at Wilshire/Western and will offer competitive door to door commute time for people driving in from San Gabriel Vally, Orange County, and North Hollywood.
|
|