|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 17, 2011 3:35:15 GMT -8
I'm happy to see that the LA City Council is more sensible than Metro, and supported the whole 8.7 miles of lane. This fact will be important in the future, when we try to add Beverly Hills and Santa Monica to the line with bus lanes. If Los Angeles (city) is willing to add lanes even in the Condo Canyon in the future, it will show a united voice in favor for transit. It's a shame that it is too late to change the Metro decision in favor of the NIMBYs, but at least now Bev Hills and SM can't say that Los Angeles was not willing to put bus lanes on the whole street within city limits. Adding those miles in SM and BH would save another 10 to 15 minutes per trip for the 720, which would save millions of dollars in operating costs per year and greatly increase ridership, making the Westside Subway extension look even better. And even when the subway is built it will be very important to have bus lanes along the whole route for the local buses, so people can reach places that are far from a subway station.
Getting Santa Monica on board and keeping the Brentwood sections of bus-only lane is most important, due to lack of funding to get the subway past Westwood. If the 720 takes 12 minutes from Westwood to Santa Monica (like it does at 2 am) instead of the current 20 minutes at rush hour, Bus to Subway to LA is clearly faster and more reliable than driving. But if the bus might get stuck in traffic on those last miles, transit won't be much faster than driving when walking and waiting time is added.
Does anyone know if Metro has firm, longer-term plans to add to these first miles of bus lanes?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 3, 2011 22:00:03 GMT -8
Looks like AV is pushing 5 new potential BRT lines. www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mta-mayor-20110804,0,2024583.story I imagine one or two will be in the SFV on a north-south basis, although not sure if this is in addition to that. Any thoughts on what the 5 routes should be? I am hoping these complement our growing rail system, but I am not much the bus expert. Since this is being developed from scratch more or less, this might be a good time to get in some input even through the Transit Coalition itself. I think Venice Blvd. would be a good route. Vermont or Western would be nice based on bus ridership, but not sure there is really room for one on those streets. Something North-South in the SGV would be good especially to connect Metrolink with the Gold Line.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 4, 2011 2:01:50 GMT -8
Vermont or Western would be nice based on bus ridership, but not sure there is really room for one on those streets. The bigger problem is that limited-stop services on north-south lines like Vermont and Western are not that much faster than locals. There are just too many transfer points with lines too close together. That's primarily why Metro wanted to ax limiteds on Western. Ridership was high, but 757s were only 10% faster than 207s. Metro's target is a 25% speed savings.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 4, 2011 7:52:37 GMT -8
Vermont or Western would be nice based on bus ridership, but not sure there is really room for one on those streets. The bigger problem is that limited-stop services on north-south lines like Vermont and Western are not that much faster than locals. There are just too many transfer points with lines too close together. That's primarily why Metro wanted to ax limiteds on Western. Ridership was high, but 757s were only 10% faster than 207s. Metro's target is a 25% speed savings. Yes, just another reason, Vermont should have been rail and Crenshaw would have been more appropriate as BRT instead.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 4, 2011 7:59:22 GMT -8
Except that Crenshaw is going to be expanded north to Hollywood, possibly via West Hollywood, and south to the Long Beach or San Pedro, giving it a regional dimension beyond its current scope.
That's not an argument against a Vermont rail project, just a defense of Crenshaw being LRT as part of a larger network.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 4, 2011 8:52:13 GMT -8
Yes, just another reason, Vermont should have been rail and Crenshaw would have been more appropriate as BRT instead. That's a very short-sighted view of the Crenshaw Corridor. The Crenshaw Corridor has SIGNIFICANT potential to be the Westside's North-South rail connection between LAX/South Bay to Wilshire, West Hollywood and Hollywood. Hence the reason it became LRT. Bus only would have been horrible, especially when it goes north of Exposition. You can already see that Metro is going to proceed with a norhern extension of the Crenshaw Line as the latest graphs have the train going underground north of MLK instead of being at-grade at Expo/Crenshaw. That's good planning.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 4, 2011 9:29:43 GMT -8
Yes, just another reason, Vermont should have been rail and Crenshaw would have been more appropriate as BRT instead. That's a very short-sighted view of the Crenshaw Corridor. The Crenshaw Corridor has SIGNIFICANT potential to be the Westside's North-South rail connection between LAX/South Bay to Wilshire, West Hollywood and Hollywood. Hence the reason it became LRT. Bus only would have been horrible, especially when it goes north of Exposition. You can already see that Metro is going to proceed with a norhern extension of the Crenshaw Line as the latest graphs have the train going underground north of MLK instead of being at-grade at Expo/Crenshaw. That's good planning. I agree that once it gets to Hollywood/Highland it will be a good route. Only problem is that anything North of Expo is not happening for many many years. With the winding route they are looking at to Hollywood/Highland, it is going to be something like 8 miles and virtually all of it would have to be underground. The Westside Extension is 9 miles for reference. It is going to be incredibly expensive. In the meantime, we are going to be left with a very disjointed system with areas that are much more appropriate for rail (Vermont between Wilshire and the Harbor Sub) being left out. Even if somehow it were built to Hollywood/Highland, it wouldn't provide direct access to the Valley, the way the 405 Line would. Personally, I think it would have been better to concentrate on a line from Sylmar to Expo (and then to LAX eventually), put BRT on Crenshaw between the Harbor Sub and the Wilshire/Western Purple Line station and build a line on the Harbor Sub to Vermont and up to the Vermont/Wilshire station. A future extension on Vermont could bring it to the Green Line taking advantage of the median south of Gage. Instead we are wasting money tunneling on Crenshaw which itself is not a super high demand route. A 405 route with a one seat ride from Metrolink all the way to Expo and beyond eventually and Vermont would be very high ridership no doubt and probably attract New Starts money. Crenshaw - no way. Even north of Expo, I think it is a long shot at best. Just look at the route from Crenshaw north to the La Brea Purple Line station. Today that is not a great bus route. Then compare that to Vermont between Expo and Wilshire. It is night and day. One of the problems with Measure R is that we ended up building political lines and not lines that make sense as much. Without Measure R, we'd only be doing New Starts lines (albeit very slowly).
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 4, 2011 10:06:13 GMT -8
I would argue that the Valley to Westside line, though good, will not be as great as Hollywood - West Hollywood - Crenshaw - LAX/South Bay line. There is more potential for density along the latter corridor than in the Valley. Heck, it's the Valley, you don't see many buildings there that are 5 - 20 stories of apartments, lofts, condos, or work offices; outside disjointed areas or the Warner Center with a sea of parking lots. Though the Valley to Wilshire will be a great line, the ridership on the Crenshaw Line will be HUGE once WeHo and Hollywood are connected. That's where there is nightlife, density, destinations and people in walkable corridors. The Valley is not a walkable corridor...
The Valley will need some park and rides to sustain ridership, whereas the Crenshaw northern extension will not need any parking lots for ridership just like how the Westside Subway Extension has no planned parking garages/lots. There's destinations and walkable areas all around. That's what builds ridership.
In terms of timing, I can see WeHo being proactive (they voted 86% Yes for Measure R) and maybe getting a Measure R2? Hey, nobody ever thought (outside of Mayor Villairaigosa) that LA would pass a sales tax increase heavily tilted for transit. It could happen again with the right leadership.........
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 4, 2011 13:29:24 GMT -8
I would argue that the Valley to Westside line, though good, will not be as great as Hollywood - West Hollywood - Crenshaw - LAX/South Bay line. There is more potential for density along the latter corridor than in the Valley. Heck, it's the Valley, you don't see many buildings there that are 5 - 20 stories of apartments, lofts, condos, or work offices; outside disjointed areas or the Warner Center with a sea of parking lots. Though the Valley to Wilshire will be a great line, the ridership on the Crenshaw Line will be HUGE once WeHo and Hollywood are connected. That's where there is nightlife, density, destinations and people in walkable corridors. The Valley is not a walkable corridor... The Valley will need some park and rides to sustain ridership, whereas the Crenshaw northern extension will not need any parking lots for ridership just like how the Westside Subway Extension has no planned parking garages/lots. There's destinations and walkable areas all around. That's what builds ridership. In terms of timing, I can see WeHo being proactive (they voted 86% Yes for Measure R) and maybe getting a Measure R2? Hey, nobody ever thought (outside of Mayor Villairaigosa) that LA would pass a sales tax increase heavily tilted for transit. It could happen again with the right leadership......... I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you have said, except I still think the Valley-Westside Line will be a home run. I would add that the Valley does have some dense corridors (Ventura, Van Nuys) and a line here would benefit from Orange Line connections as well as 2 Metrolink lines. Also, there is tremendous demand for transit from the Valley to the Westside, and there are few to no alternatives to the 405. When you are talking going from the Valley to UCLA and Westwood in 10 minutes vs. 40 on the freeway, you are talking about a ton a ridership. I'm all for a Measure R2, but lets not assume this is going to happen anytime soon. Also, remember it barely passed because other parts of the County were upset that so much was being spent on the Westside Extension. It will only be worse for this line (Hollywood) - people will say they already have a subway and so on. Back to my original reason for posting. I see some MTA Board members are pushing for a BRT between the Gold Line in Pasadena and the Red Line - in essence an extension of the Orange Line. This probably makes good sense as one of the choices.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 5, 2011 13:54:55 GMT -8
We are going off topic for Wilshire BRT. ;D
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 5, 2011 15:33:50 GMT -8
We are going off topic for Wilshire BRT. ;D My fault, as I just went under the heading with the closest association. Should have started a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by skater on Jan 23, 2014 17:06:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Apr 9, 2015 6:39:39 GMT -8
In the press release for the opening of phase 2 of the bus lanes on Wilshire, it mentions that they will be doing a test of all door boarding this spring: Longest segment of Wilshire peak hour bus lanes to open on WednesdayI hope the test goes well, because all door boarding is a good way to really speed up the service since you would not have a line of people waiting to enter the front door.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 9, 2015 9:36:28 GMT -8
All door boarding isn't a thing? When I rode the bus half the boarders got on the back door and we'd wave our day or month passes in the direction of the driver.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Apr 9, 2015 11:03:50 GMT -8
All door boarding isn't a thing? When I rode the bus half the boarders got on the back door and we'd wave our day or month passes in the direction of the driver. All Metro needs to do is put TAP validators on either side of the stations and a rail to separate the station from the crosswalk, much like they've done at the Orange Line. You tap as you enter, hop on the bus, and from there on, you're on the honor system.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 9, 2015 11:50:23 GMT -8
All door boarding isn't a thing? When I rode the bus half the boarders got on the back door and we'd wave our day or month passes in the direction of the driver. All Metro needs to do is put TAP validators on either side of the stations and a rail to separate the station from the crosswalk, much like they've done at the Orange Line. You tap as you enter, hop on the bus, and from there on, you're on the honor system. The only real problem is people exiting from the front. People can't board until all the people exit. If they could get people to not exit the front of the bus, most delays would go away. With tap, most people board pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 13, 2015 11:13:30 GMT -8
All Metro needs to do is put TAP validators on either side of the stations and a rail to separate the station from the crosswalk, much like they've done at the Orange Line. You tap as you enter, hop on the bus, and from there on, you're on the honor system. The only real problem is people exiting from the front. People can't board until all the people exit. If they could get people to not exit the front of the bus, most delays would go away. With tap, most people board pretty quickly. But that's only a problem now because people have to tap in front of the bus. The bottleneck is not people exiting the front door... the bottleneck is all those people entering the front door. If you can tap off the bus, or at all three doors, then people can enter and exit the bus just like they do on the subway or light rail. No congestion at the front door. There is no reason why TAP validators can't be installed by the middle or rear doors on 60ft buses. You should only use the front door to board if you have to pay with cash (which should be eliminated completely in my opinion).
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 13, 2015 12:05:23 GMT -8
The only real problem is people exiting from the front. People can't board until all the people exit. If they could get people to not exit the front of the bus, most delays would go away. With tap, most people board pretty quickly. But that's only a problem now because people have to tap in front of the bus. The bottleneck is not people exiting the front door... the bottleneck is all those people entering the front door. If you can tap off the bus, or at all three doors, then people can enter and exit the bus just like they do on the subway or light rail. No congestion at the front door. There is no reason why TAP validators can't be installed by the middle or rear doors on 60ft buses. You should only use the front door to board if you have to pay with cash (which should be eliminated completely in my opinion). A lot of people won't bother to tap then as who will watch them to make sure they tap. Also, if a bunch of people exit from the middle door and a bunch happen to try to enter there you have the same problems. Seems pretty easy to have people just not exit the front and in fact when people follow that directive, it works pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 15, 2015 16:43:40 GMT -8
|
|