|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 16, 2010 13:27:38 GMT -8
Rapids are great for long-haul traveling. For short distance, I would take either the 33 or 733, whatever came first.
When you're going between Olympic/Figueroa to Century City, the benefit of the Rapid far outweighs limited stop service routes. The same will be for Venice. It will make Venice beach a little more accessible and convenient for those of us who make the downtown to Venice Beach journey.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 16, 2010 14:17:46 GMT -8
I'm guessing, signal preemption on Venice Blvd. The 333 currently operates like the 33....there is really no difference between the two other than the 333 stops at every other stop. I envision the 733 will only stop at the main boulevards like the 720/728 (i.e. Arlington, Vermont, Western, Crenshaw, etc....) and not small streets like Gramecy, Wilton, etc... It will more likely reduce stops on the western end of the line where they are much closer together. As I sit on the westside Sector Council, this has been in the works for over 2 years, the issues were that; 1) We didn't have enough 60' buses to start this service - Now with 60' buses operating on the 333 route now, through a lot of persistence on my part, there are now resoruces and equipment to potentially operate this route. 2) the Original Rapid implementation needed to be completed, however there is a hitch in that Torrance Transit was supposed to do a Rapid, havent done it yet so that was traded up for the Venice Rapid . The question that will come before us tonight will be which stops will be removed for the Rapid service. The reason the rapid buses feel cleaner and more comfortable is because they're newer buses. Additionally the level of service on Venice is so high that the difference in service from rapid to limited stop may be negligable. Although I really do like limited stop services whether it be a rapid or whatever, my hope is that 33 will get articulated buses when 733 begins because that is what I felt was needed when I brought the issue up at the TC meeting, I wasn't thinking about putting a rapid on Venice Blvd. Not enough demand and Not enough 60' buses.Right now per our last council meeting, they are considering operating as; * a mix of 45 foot and 60' buses for the 733 Rapid and *40' and new 45' buses for the 33 Local since most of the extra capacity demand is for 733 since those passengers travel longer distances than the 33. You might ask, why don't they operate ALL the 733 Rapid buses as 60' articulateds right now, the problem is that there's not enough equipment to operate such service and ieven if they purchase more buses at the drop of a hat, there is NO room to house, maintain and store the 60' buses needed to operate until they can complete the new bus maintainence divisions needed ; one by Union Station the other by LAX both of which are in planning.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jan 16, 2010 15:24:49 GMT -8
Will the rapid be 24/7 like 333 is now?
Also do you know when all those old NABI's will be replaced by the 45" compobuses in your sector? I'm also curious as to how they're fueling the CNG buses over at Venice division if there is no infrastructure for it?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 17, 2010 5:07:11 GMT -8
The Rapids are more clean and comfortable than a limited stop..that's the truth. Metro doesn't do anything special to a Rapid bus save for the magic green light transponders. The buses are identical in seating, cleaning rotation and everything. Ever caught a Rapid bus on a local line? Does it make the local line better?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 17, 2010 9:04:06 GMT -8
The Rapids are more clean and comfortable than a limited stop..that's the truth. Metro doesn't do anything special to a Rapid bus save for the magic green light transponders. The buses are identical in seating, cleaning rotation and everything. Ever caught a Rapid bus on a local line? Does it make the local line better? Wad...I have nothing against local or limited stop service. My opinion, as I've made clear, is that I prefer a Rapid line to limited stop service. And, I experienced it first hand when the 328 was dropped in favor of 728. I think we heard the same thing from transit fans "oh..what's the difference between limited to Rapid service...yada yada yada yada......". Maybe, just maybe, people prefer Rapid to Limited service? Don't you think that's possible? Like I mentioned a couple of times, for short hauls, a 33 or 333 would be great. But when you go from downtown LA to Venice Beach..you want the 733. Countless times I have been on the 333 and generally it plays 'tag' with the 33 and the time savings are nil.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jan 17, 2010 15:34:33 GMT -8
Will the rapid be 24/7 like 333 is now? Also do you know when all those old NABI's will be replaced by the 45" compobuses in your sector? I'm also curious as to how they're fueling the CNG buses over at Venice division if there is no infrastructure for it? They are fueling them in Santa Monica on Stewart Street at the gas company site. The buses line up there every morning.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 20, 2010 4:34:19 GMT -8
Maybe, just maybe, people prefer Rapid to Limited service? Don't you think that's possible? Sure, it's possible. But that's more to the credit of the marketing team behind Metro Rapid than the riders. Does every time Metro adds 700 to a local line mean the Rapid was a brand new service? Marketing pros love it when riders don't remember that all but 4 of the current Rapid lines had their origins as 300-series limiteds. Marketing pros also love to talk about Metro Rapid being 25% faster service. Well, the number is real but based on the best-case scenario. It's a 25% savings if you're riding end-to-end, and it's 25% over a local. It's never clocked against the limited line it succeeded. Also, for the average trip length of 4 to 6 miles that most bus riders make, the time difference is so inconsequential that bus riders are better off getting on the first vehicle that arrives. That's because too many people are riding along Venice Boulevard. Don't get your hopes up about 733. It will make almost all of the stops 333 makes right now, but with a couple of the less-important transfer points (like Arlington Avenue) being dropped. That's not what slows the buses down, though. It's the busy stops at Vermont, Western and Crenshaw -- where lots of people get on and off -- that makes the trip slow. Metro's not dropping those. You want to speed up trip times along Venice? Get Metro and Big Blue Bus to agree on a single Pico Boulevard bus between downtowns L.A. and Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Feb 20, 2010 19:45:10 GMT -8
Just wondering but how can the 733 fit into the rapid network east of la brea?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 1, 2010 4:44:41 GMT -8
Just wondering but how can the 733 fit into the rapid network east of la brea? The way 333 does now. Same stops, except for Arlington.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Mar 1, 2010 17:11:50 GMT -8
The way 333 does now. Same stops, except for Arlington.[/quote] Thats not what I meant. What I mean is that all the Rapid lines that crosses Venice Blvd. east of La Brea don't stop at Venice at all so how effective can this Rapid be if it can't connect to the other Rapids like 710, 754, and the 757.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 1, 2010 20:52:31 GMT -8
You raise a good point, I had forgot about that entirely. I've always been annoyed at how I couldn't get off at Venice when using a North/South Rapid, when the Silver Line was being presented to the public I had suggested there be a stop on Venice, but nothing came of it.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 2, 2010 5:19:11 GMT -8
You raise a good point, I had forgot about that entirely. I've always been annoyed at how I couldn't get off at Venice when using a North/South Rapid, when the Silver Line was being presented to the public I had suggested there be a stop on Venice, but nothing came of it. Metro will have to add it. Metro ought to consider Socata's proposal as well to kill 730. It's the next street over, and it has the most negligible time savings over a local bus. It's only about 10 minutes end-to-end between downtown and Crackton.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Mar 4, 2010 13:48:33 GMT -8
The only problem will be that the passengers are already used to the Pico stops, plus there's more business in Pico Blvd than in Venice Blvd. So why won't the Big Blue Bus and Metro just come up with plan to unite the Rapid 7 and 730 or just fusing the both 333 and 730 into a brand new line?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 5, 2010 5:20:17 GMT -8
The only problem will be that the passengers are already used to the Pico stops, plus there's more business in Pico Blvd than in Venice Blvd. So why won't the Big Blue Bus and Metro just come up with plan to unite the Rapid 7 and 730 or just fusing the both 333 and 730 into a brand new line? Because if Metro and Santa Monica could not figure it out in the last 50 years, they won't figure it out in the next 50. The correct answer, though, is the unions. The Metro drivers, who are represented by the UTU, are opposed to giving up service to Santa Monica's drivers, who are represented by ... the UTU.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Jun 22, 2010 11:07:35 GMT -8
I know that line 733 will follow line 333's route but does anyone have an idea what stops it would serve? Will it connect with the other rapid lines east of Fairfax blvd?
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Jun 22, 2010 12:53:08 GMT -8
I know that line 733 will follow line 333's route but does anyone have an idea what stops it would serve? Will it connect with the other rapid lines east of Fairfax blvd? Metro has FINALLY posted the new schedule for the 733: www.metro.net/riding_metro/bus_overview/images/062710/733.pdfThe map shows the connections.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Jun 22, 2010 17:12:56 GMT -8
Nice!!! Thanks for posting the link. So no connections to the Rapid 7? Rapid 7 and 7 riders could've had another option to go to Venice if Metro put a stop on Pico. Any modifications to the rapid lines east of Fairfax?
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Jun 24, 2010 12:49:30 GMT -8
Never mind I passed by Venice on Western today and I saw a Rapid bus stop on Venice for 757. Wad, you were right, they had to add it.
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jun 27, 2010 13:15:55 GMT -8
It seems like there's too few stops Downtown... I would put one every 3 blocks going North-South since those blocks are longer: 1st, 4th, 7th, Olympic, Pico. I would also add a stop at Olive or Grand. Also, I looked last night, and there still doesn't seem to be any bench at 7th St! I don't get why they don't just use the same stops as the 728 on Spring... Other curious omissions are Abbot Kinney, Rose, Ocean Park and Pico...
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 17, 2011 20:26:02 GMT -8
Here's the updated service changes: www.metro.net/board/Items/2011/03_March/20110316OPItem4.pdfSome highlights: The plan to cancel Line 704 service east of Alvarado has been scrapped, so the 704 will continue the same route Metro will bring limited stop service on Western to replace the to-be-cancelled 757 Silver Line service will be enhanced on Saturdays between Downtown LA and Artesia from 60 minutes to 40 minutes (this is an awesome change) Read the rest for yourself...
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 18, 2011 23:35:18 GMT -8
Silver Line service will be enhanced on Saturdays between Downtown LA and Artesia from 60 minutes to 40 minutes It's a shame they could not have gone for every 30 minutes. A bus every 40 minutes means that the schedule changes back and forth every 2 hours. At least every 60 minutes is easy to remember. For a line that's supposed to be on the "Rapid Transit" map with the Orange Line and the rail lines, this really should be every 20 minute service even on weekends.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 21, 2011 10:46:56 GMT -8
I know there's more to it, but it seems like 11% is actually a pretty big deal. It's not when you look at the actual time that is saved. A 15-minute trip is about 2 minutes quicker on a Rapid. Basically, north of the 10 Freeway, a north-south Rapid is not much faster than a local. That's because of all the east-west buses close together. Why Metro targeted Line 757 for cancellation is because of the close-together bus stops. Passengers now have adjusted their patterns to board at a local/Rapid stop and take whatever bus arrives first. Despite these facts, I am vehemently opposed to 757's cancellation. I defend the line because I am a regular Western bus rider. I don't need any better reason. But I have one. If Metro gets rid of 757, it can and will use the same logic to get rid of all north-south Rapid service. I agree that the stops are too close together and nearly everyone takes whichever bus comes first. That could be fixed, but it could also be a safety concern when people try to run across the street. As I see it, the reason that there is only an 11% time savings is twofold. One contributor is that the traffic north of the 10 fwy is really bad and both routes sit in the same traffic with nowhere to go. I don't think that much can be done for that. The other reason - and correct me if I'm wrong - but south of the 10 the local stops are spaced out farther than on other really busy routes. Or maybe it just seems that way because they don't get used as much. If they aren't used as much then maybe they should get rid of the Rapid. But if there are fewer stops than normal, adding a reasonable number of stops would increase the service gap between the two routes. In any event my position is that they shouldn't do anything for the next year until we see what happens with Expo. It seems counterintuitive to reduce service on a well performing major line with a new rail line soon to open. Especially since they can't really be saving much based on what they describe.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 21, 2011 11:04:57 GMT -8
Silver Line service will be enhanced on Saturdays between Downtown LA and Artesia from 60 minutes to 40 minutes It's a shame they could not have gone for every 30 minutes. A bus every 40 minutes means that the schedule changes back and forth every 2 hours. At least every 60 minutes is easy to remember. For a line that's supposed to be on the "Rapid Transit" map with the Orange Line and the rail lines, this really should be every 20 minute service even on weekends. The real shame is the branding of the "Silver Line" and the "Orange Line" in the first place. Busways and BRT may be a necessary part of the transit system, but they should not get official Metro "colors". Personally, I'd skip the whole color branding scheme for Metro lines entirely and use numbers for bus services and letters for rail services.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 21, 2011 13:23:13 GMT -8
I'd much rather have colors than letters. At least colors match what we see on maps and on signposts, so it's mnemonic.
As for colors for BRT, I don't know if it's necessary or not, but it does signify a level of service above regular buses.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 2, 2011 20:50:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on May 3, 2011 8:20:10 GMT -8
Well I heard of a hiring freeze, but a friend of mine is now at OCI and he says Metro is hiring 300 new drivers ( he is #40 in his class) So what is up with all the new hires if service is being cut back? Well, some new drivers will be needed to replace the ones that go to the Expo line (even if some of the operators come from other rail lines, you would need bus operators (w/ at least 5 years of experience and good record) to replace them, and the newbies to replace the others). But obviously, that wouldn't create 300 new positions. Wonder what's up.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 3, 2011 10:37:31 GMT -8
Didn't Metro order 700 new buses last month?
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on May 4, 2011 6:36:57 GMT -8
Didn't Metro order 700 new buses last month? I think it was more of an RFP, I don't think they have actually placed the order yet. But they will be getting in 700 more buses over (I think) a 5 year period. I suspect that most (if not all) will be fleet replacement (rest of the CNG Neoplans and later on the New Flyer C40HF/LF and the earliest NABI 40-LFWs). Shouldn't require more drivers, but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 4, 2011 15:59:52 GMT -8
Didn't Metro order 700 new buses last month? They approved an order using "best value" criteria, mainly to replace the oldest buses in the fleet, some of which have clocked over 700,000 miles. Whew! Here's an excerpt from the press release: www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/bolster-clean-air-bus-fleet-zero-emissions-p/The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) approved today the solicitation of up to 700 CNG, state-of-the-art buses that will replace retiring 40' buses rotating out of service.
The board also approved a proposal by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich to set in motion a pilot program to obtain and operate up to 30 zero-emission or super low emission buses.
"This begins an historic transition of the Metro bus fleet to zero-emission buses, such as electrically powered vehicles," said Mayor Villaraigosa in a media briefing following the board meeting. "The long-term goal is to attract a green bus manufacturing to Los Angeles to create local jobs," he said.
The action will provide Metro with a four-year window to test zero-emission prototype buses prior to the next replacement bus procurement in 2016.
Metro will shore up its bus fleet through 2015 with up to 700 conventional low emission 40-foot advanced transit buses fueled by compressed natural gas. The buses will be rotated into the fleet during the next 3 or 4 years to replace older buses retiring from service. Typically Metro maintains buses for 12 years up to 15 years, and mileage may reach anywhere from 600,000 to 700,000 miles.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 9, 2011 4:01:40 GMT -8
So what is up with all the new hires if service is being cut back? Is that 300 hired for a class or 300 successful graduates of training? If it's the latter, Metro's hiring way more than 300. Metro may still allow bus operators to retire and collect the minimum pension after 23 years of service. A lot of drivers may be worried about their job prospects and leaving at year 23.
|
|