|
Post by carter on May 9, 2011 16:54:42 GMT -8
I saw another BBB 60ft bus doing testing on Pico last week. Was not able to snap a photo but it was bus #5309. NABI BRT style (similar to Metro) 60ft articulated bus painted in Rapid Blue with "TEST" head sign running on what I presume is a simulated Rapid 7 routing to Wilshire/Western. I think they are still doing timing tests to determine headways and how to layover at Wilshire/Western. BBB is removing the Pico/Beverly stop for Rapid 7 because the curb cutout is not long enough fit a 60ft bus (for reals). So there won't be a Rapid 7 stop between Robertson Blvd and Westwood Blvd... a pretty long stretch. I wrote to BBB and tried to convince them to replace Beverly with either Motor or Ave of The Stars. We'll see if that pans out. I saw one on the 10 freeway about two months ago and they sure look sleek in all that blue. BBB is also adding a stop at 28th street, which is a huge boon to those of us who live a half-block away from that stop and take the 7 often. Getting rid of Beverly is too bad though, but I suspect BBB's primary interest, understandably, is getting people to Santa Monica as quickly as possible, with the emphasis on access mostly within city boundaries.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on May 10, 2011 10:07:58 GMT -8
BBB is removing the Pico/Beverly stop for Rapid 7 because the curb cutout is not long enough fit a 60ft bus (for reals). So there won't be a Rapid 7 stop between Robertson Blvd and Westwood Blvd... a pretty long stretch. I wrote to BBB and tried to convince them to replace Beverly with either Motor or Ave of The Stars. We'll see if that pans out. BBB is also adding a stop at 28th street, which is a huge boon to those of us who live a half-block away from that stop and take the 7 often. Getting rid of Beverly is too bad though, but I suspect BBB's primary interest, understandably, is getting people to Santa Monica as quickly as possible, with the emphasis on access mostly within city boundaries. www01.smgov.net/bbb/BBBServiceProposalsAug2011.pdfBBB is adding a Rapid stop at Stewart - which contradicts their entire stated purpose of increasing Rapid service at the expense of local service - so those of us who take the 7 will get to wait longer or walk further. I can't see how decreasing local service is an emphasis within city boundaries? Their perverse, punitive logic seems to be that, by satisfying "demand" for Rapid 7 service, there will be "more" seats available on fewer, less timely, Local 7 runs. The extended Rapid runs to Wilshire might prove worthwhile, even though I would have preferred a straight, single-seat shot all the way to Flower or Hill street. BBB should be congratulated for removing Beverly. They're now duplicated what MTA achieved on Manchester with the 715 - a 3 mile stretch with no stops: "Moving fewer people faster", if I may borrow from LAMetroMole.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 10, 2011 12:24:10 GMT -8
Rapid service on Pico doesn't make a lot of sense to be honest, patrons often take whatever comes first and there is significant on/offs at local stops.
Also, Pico is a lot like Western in the sense that it's two-lanes in each direction with many signals and heavy traffic which essentially ensures bus bunching because it's difficult to overtake.
They should've have cancelled the Rapid and devoted more resources to the Local 7, perhaps even creating a short-line between Lincoln and Westwood.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 10, 2011 21:06:04 GMT -8
Like any Rapid vs. Local service, the biggest time savings (total, not percentage) are for people traveling the whole length of the corridor. elray, Indeed I meant rapid stop at Stewart/28th, but thanks for clarifying. ieko, Looking at the time tables, an end-to-end run at 8 a.m. on the Rapid is scheduled to be 6 minutes faster than the Local going west-to-east and about 10 minutes faster going east-to-west. That's about 10-16% faster than the local. Not insignificant, though Metro canceled the Western Rapid, which was in that same time savings range. I don't pretend to know what BBB planners are aiming for, but I suspect part of utility of the Rapid is to get bus loads of SMC students to and from campus as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 10, 2011 22:14:25 GMT -8
That really isn't much of a time savings though when you think about it -- because the first bus to appear is the bus the students will take. The way these services are scheduled are for local & rapid services to be spaced out as much as possible to prevent bunching.
So in reality you're waiting the same amount of time for a bus with almost no gain in time savings [time savings gained would mostly be eliminated because you're probably going to wait around the same amount of time for a bus]. No one on Pico is going to wait specifically for the rapid because it doesn't mean you'll overtake a local bus.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 11, 2011 7:54:56 GMT -8
ieko, Looking at the time tables, an end-to-end run at 8 a.m. on the Rapid is scheduled to be 6 minutes faster than the Local going west-to-east and about 10 minutes faster going east-to-west. That's about 10-16% faster than the local. Not insignificant, though Metro canceled the Western Rapid, which was in that same time savings range. Metro only cancelled the weekend portion of the Rapid 757 in the end. The weekday 757 will continue. www.metro.net/about/metro-service-changes/proposed-service-changes-alternatives
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on May 11, 2011 8:38:11 GMT -8
That really isn't much of a time savings though when you think about it -- because the first bus to appear is the bus the students will take. The way these services are scheduled are for local & rapid services to be spaced out as much as possible to prevent bunching. So in reality you're waiting the same amount of time for a bus with almost no gain in time savings [time savings gained would mostly be eliminated because you're probably going to wait around the same amount of time for a bus]. No one on Pico is going to wait specifically for the rapid because it doesn't mean you'll overtake a local bus. They'll wait for the Rapid if they are going downtown and want to transfer to the Purple Line at Wilshire/Western. Only the Rapid will go there. Also, at the Santa Monica City Council presentation last night, Big Blue Bus indicated that Regular 7 service would remain the same during the morning rush, and switch to 12 minute headways (5 versus 6 buses per hour) at midday. This seems to indicate a change from their initial presentation which said 15 minute headways midday (4 versus 6 buses per hour). If this is truly a change in their proposal, then that is not such a loss for Regular 7 (going from 10 minute to 12 minute headways midday).
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 11, 2011 10:25:46 GMT -8
That doesn't really make a case as to why you would want to keep the rapid service, the local could go to wilshire/western.
If you killed the rapid and devoted those resources to the 7 you could probably get the headway down to 6-8 minutes. That's instead of 15 minute headways on the rapid or 12 minute headways on the local (average wait of 7.5min and 6min respectively).
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 11, 2011 10:37:56 GMT -8
My personal experience taking bus on Pico is that people do in fact wait for the Rapids. And during rush hour, Pico has 3 lanes each direction, not 2 lanes. Published schedule not withstanding, the watch on my wrist can tell me that there is significant run time savings during rush hour if you are going between Downtown SM and Rimpau, enough so that people will wait for the Rapids... especially during morning hours. If you board the Local 7 in Downtown Santa Monica, the Rapid will typically overtake you by the time you reach SMC in your Local 7.
Since introduction of Rapid 7, total bus ridership on Pico has increased 15%. This is proof that the service is valuable. It's clearly moving more people faster; elray's rant is pretty far off base in my opinion and not supported by facts.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on May 11, 2011 15:54:40 GMT -8
BBB insisted to me that they analyzed the "first available" and "more empty" factors in boarding preferences. I don't think they understand how well their deceptive marketing campaigns work (Bluer/Less-Lavender/Periwinkle-Challenged* = faster, even though you have to wait longer). Whenever I happen to be waiting with the high school and college college crowd, inevitably, I will overhear someone express entitlement, to wit "I'm gonna get me on the Rapid", much like one would talk about getting the latest Android 4G phone plan - they're convinced. At Lincoln, and at SMC, its common to have a choice of 2-3 buses jammed back to back. carter: Dwell time at the high school and SMC are a major problem. I don't see how rapidization helps. Artics with rear-door boarding, sure. But the main benefit would be from dispatching short-run/alight-only extra coaches on outbound routes, which I presume already happens. ieko: Right you are. In the many years riding Lincoln, never was I witness to a local coach overtaken by a Rapid. We'd be best off if we just had plenty of locals on 6-minute headways. Saving a few people six minutes by making everyone else take an extra net 12-15 doesn't seem equitable to me. But- Rapid service on pico could perform, if properly implemented. The congestifying concrete medians would need to be removed along with some parking for a limited-distance bus lane, to allow the coaches to escape the blockade eastbound before Bundy. We'd need actual signal pre-emption - I guess that's coming, based on some construction signs posted last year. They'd have to lose the schedule, like the 720 did, and just let the drivers DRIVE. Sorry, arguments about bunching fall flat - I ride the 7, and its not uncommon to see 5 or more coaches bumper-to-bumper. bzcat: Ridership has increased with the free bus privileges for SMC, possibly the same riders re-boarding more often. At $1/ride, you'll plan your trips. With a "free" unlimited pass, you'll use it more. I'm not saying its a bad thing (student passes), but the figures may overstate the count of unique riders. * - Periwinkle - I was on the bus-color-choosing-panel, alas, there was a majority of Tinky-Winky (Teletubby) fans there that day.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 12, 2011 10:16:54 GMT -8
You know elray, I take the Rapid 3 on Lincoln too. And almost always we end up overtaking a Local 3. It's like you live in a parallel universe. I'm sorry but I just don't understand your objection to Rapid service.
The kids waiting at Pico/Lincoln get on the first #7 bus because they are only going less than 1 mile to SMC. That is understandable. But if those kids are waiting at Green line station for #3 bus (to get to SMC), you can bet your ass that they will wait for Rapid 3. And they will get to Pico/Lincoln faster than if they get on the first Local 3.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 12, 2011 12:30:47 GMT -8
For the 3 the overtaking generally happens near manchester/lincoln because it's able to cut through, going northbound the local has already picked up waiting passengers so the rapid continues on and then eventually catches up to the local [just like when you get bus bunching] so in reality this isn't really better service. The line is more productive southbound when it has nearly no ability to overtake until getting close to manchester/lincoln so the services are sync'ed -- by that you get the chance to pick up some people, however you're not likely to have a good reason to wait for a rapid either unless you intend to go all the way either, the time difference is negligible because once again, you'd spend the time waiting for the rapid instead of the time travelling on the local.
I use the Rapid 3 just as often as the 7, but I've learned that I ought to just take whatever comes first there too.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 12, 2011 20:28:42 GMT -8
The problem is that the rapid buses don't come frequently enough. The rail rapid transit lines are every 5 to 12 minutes, and the real BRT lines are every 5 to 10 minutes, throughout the day.
If the BBB and Metro Rapid buses all had 10 minute headways all day long, they would become very useful and would be reliably faster than taking the local bus for any trip longer than 3 miles.
In the same way, Metrolink isn't very useful most of the day because there can be 1 to 2 hour gaps between trains. If Metrolink ran every 12 minutes, you can bet people would be clamoring for Metrolink expansion, not just new light rail lines.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on May 12, 2011 22:19:40 GMT -8
Bzcat, obviously we have a different experience. Mine, cumulatively over a decade, especially involving the 3 and the 7, and more recently Expo II, disgusted me enough to buy a car.
Maybe you live at a red-letter double Rapid intersection, so you get twice the service levels and only have to walk half the time, if at all?
My problem with "Rapid" is that it seems to be mostly about branding and boasting, and it usually takes away from local service enhancement, as BBB's latest proposal does. It creates huge gaps (Manchester between Market and Sepulveda, Pico between Robertson and Westwood), where you're just hung out to dry, as infrequent local coaches don't show or don't stop. Rapid dominance on Wilshire, Santa Monica, means a very long walk or wait.
The politician-managers who dream up Rapid do so to distract, instead of addressing real performance and accountability issues. I can still wait an hour or more for an off-peak bus, only to be passed up, and there is no supervisor to call. There is still no "Next Next Bus" data, still no bus lane(s), still no signal pre-emption/priority, or freedom from the satnav schedule.
Pico will appear to have better service, for the fact that there will be more service overall, but that service addition should have been for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 13, 2011 8:12:14 GMT -8
Bzcat, obviously we have a different experience. Mine, cumulatively over a decade, especially involving the 3 and the 7, and more recently Expo II, disgusted me enough to buy a car. Maybe you live at a red-letter double Rapid intersection, so you get twice the service levels and only have to walk half the time, if at all? My problem with "Rapid" is that it seems to be mostly about branding and boasting, and it usually takes away from local service enhancement, as BBB's latest proposal does. It creates huge gaps (Manchester between Market and Sepulveda, Pico between Robertson and Westwood), where you're just hung out to dry, as infrequent local coaches don't show or don't stop. Rapid dominance on Wilshire, Santa Monica, means a very long walk or wait. The politician-managers who dream up Rapid do so to distract, instead of addressing real performance and accountability issues. I can still wait an hour or more for an off-peak bus, only to be passed up, and there is no supervisor to call. There is still no "Next Next Bus" data, still no bus lane(s), still no signal pre-emption/priority, or freedom from the satnav schedule. Pico will appear to have better service, for the fact that there will be more service overall, but that service addition should have been for everyone. I don't ride the 3 or 7 frequent enough to make much of a judgement.........but if you are throwing the 720/20 "under the bus", then I have to completely disagree with you. I stand at intersections with many others (those not financially well-off as me) and EVERYBODY is waiting for the 720 Rapid.......they could care less about the 20 local. The Rapid is generally standing room, whereas the Local is not. The Rapids are fantastic........in fact, so much so that New York and Chicago looked to Los Angeles as a model for Rapid bus service. And this is not a "new thing", it went by a different name for decades, it's called "Express buses". However, yes, the branding of the Rapid is much much better and LA did that well. The Rapids are more convenient, spacious and faster than a Local. People will wait for Rapid service over Local service and even walk the block or two. But remove the Rapid and only have Local service.........I'd rather bike then. Sorry bro, more people are riding Rapids on the corridors than Local buses, just look at the buses. That's not to say its eating into the Local ridership, your providing more options. More people want to travel to the major thoroughfares like Sepulveda, Westwood, Bundy.....not Yale, 17th, etc... Metro and Big Blue are doing it right by providing more frequent service to major corridors, that's where the ridership wants to go. Just look at how many people get off on those major streets compared to the small streets that only Locals serve.
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on May 13, 2011 10:19:54 GMT -8
It also depends on how far you're traveling and how far you're willing to walk from the Rapid stop to your destination.
Riding from Miracle Mile to Beverly Hills is (generally) not significantly slower on the 20 than the 720 (there are more stops but the dwell times seem shorter) and I can almost always get a seat. I often take the local to Wilshire/Santa Monica and then transfer to the Rapid to continue to Barrington, avoiding the crush of the transfer at Westwood.
Unfortunately, its not as convenient to do the reverse on the way home but because traffic on Wilshire west of the 405 is so screwed up now, I usually have a choice of 4 or 5 Rapid buses bunched up at Barrington and can take the one with the most open seats.
And as for the walk, if the bus is really crowded by the time it get to Fairfax on the way home, I just get off there and walk home (a couple blocks east of La Brea). It doesn't take very long and is actually kind of pleasant.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 30, 2011 11:46:20 GMT -8
Los Angeles transit entered a new era yesterday with little fanfare or notice. Rapid 7 began service directly to Wilshire/Western yesterday without terminating at Rimpau. There is still a transfer to subway involved but I believe over time, most people will switch from riding the Metro 30 to Rimpau to taking the subway. It's much faster trip (subway speed plus no wait time at Rimpau to transfer) end to end than before.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Aug 30, 2011 16:17:25 GMT -8
Los Angeles transit entered a new era yesterday with little fanfare or notice. Rapid 7 began service directly to Wilshire/Western yesterday without terminating at Rimpau. There is still a transfer to subway involved but I believe over time, most people will switch from riding the Metro 30 to Rimpau to taking the subway. It's much faster trip (subway speed plus no wait time at Rimpau to transfer) end to end than before. I rode the Rapid 7 for fun last night (yeah, I know, get a life!) from Lincoln to the Purple Line and back. The first thing I noticed was the "new bus smell." And very clean, nice blue padded seats. The bus was nearly empty at Lincoln at 8:00 PM, but there was standing room only as the bus pulled away from 18th Street (SMC). Every time someone pulled the "Stop Requested" cord there was an earsplitting screech that was almost unbearable, that was repeated when the bus approached the stop. It didn't seem to be related to the breaking. (On the way back, it only occurred when the cord was pulled.) Only about five of us were left to get off at Wilshire/Western, and I was the only one to descend the escalator to the subway, which was conveniently right alongside the bus stop. It took about 50 minutes from Lincoln to Wilshire/Western. Then a quick ride to downtown on the subway. Coming back on the 9:22 bus, I was the only boarder until back on Pico, then only four got on before Westwood. A few more westbound students boarded at the college. The bus driver was tearing at an amazing pace, especially between the stopless Robertson to Westwood section. Several passengers in the back of the articulated bus let out whoops as we tore down the hill above 11th street at a roller-coaster speed. It will probably be a while before it catches on, but it will be a good option. I regret that it won't run on weekends. Also the last bus from the subway is at 10:22 (it should have a run at 11:42 for the last train...)
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 31, 2011 9:01:31 GMT -8
In waiting for my local #7 which I ride every day, I've noticed the new articulate rapids are pack to capacity, as are the locals (at least during rush hour).
I used to live in Santa Monica and so I have experience the flow of traffic for the #7s both ways. There is more westbound ridership in the morning and eastbound ridership in the evening.
The locals were like sardines before and are still like sardines.
What Pico buses REALLY could use is transit-only lanes because the traffic through Pico-Robertson is bumper to bumper.
To be honest, I rarely see a Rapid pass a local on Pico. But the limited stops make for a more enjoyable ride without as much jostling.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Sept 7, 2011 18:20:39 GMT -8
In waiting for my local #7 which I ride every day, I've noticed the new articulate rapids are pack to capacity, as are the locals (at least during rush hour). I used to live in Santa Monica and so I have experience the flow of traffic for the #7s both ways. There is more westbound ridership in the morning and eastbound ridership in the evening. The locals were like sardines before and are still like sardines. What Pico buses REALLY could use is transit-only lanes because the traffic through Pico-Robertson is bumper to bumper. To be honest, I rarely see a Rapid pass a local on Pico. But the limited stops make for a more enjoyable ride without as much jostling. The SRO conditions are somewhat the result of the simultaneous start of SMMUSD and SMC - with compounding from the city's "traffic-calming" measures and the permit parking nonsense. They should diminish as the SMC students drop out. I agree that _any_ transit lane mileage, even discontinuous, along with signal pre-emption, would yield the most benefit - far more than any "Rapid" efforts. Within SM City limits, I think its time to discuss removing the concrete medians, which cause unnecessary jams.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 8, 2011 3:56:26 GMT -8
I rode the extended Rapid 7 for the first time yesterday.
I was very impressed. On a midday trip (11:42 a.m.west), more than 100 people boarded, and there were standees from Westwood to the college. Then it thinned out. It arrived in downtown Santa Monica 10 minutes ahead of schedule. Total trip time was about 50 minutes.
It's finding its ridership east of Crackton, which is a good sign. Also, that stretch of Pico is improving. There's work going on on a Lowe's, and Midtown has extended storefronts to Pico. It looks great. A few years ago, Pico from Crenshaw to La Brea was almost completely vacant.
The Rapid really needs to go inside Century City and have a stop at Constellation/Ave. of the Stars. Also, that part of Pico is hilly and the artic was struggling on the climb.
I also spotted for the first time new 3800-series NABI 40-footers. I didn't know Santa Monica had bought these. They were in use on Line 10.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 14, 2011 17:03:23 GMT -8
Rapid 7 detour to Century City makes plenty of sense from potential ridership standpoint but the reality is that it will add at least 12 minutes to the run time... not that feasible in my opinion.
- West bound on Pico - right turn on Century Park East, left on Constellation (depending on timing of the light at Olympic, this will take 4 to 5 minutes)
- New stop at Constellation/Ave of The Stars (up to 90 seconds for red light and dwell time)
- Left on Century Park West - right on Olympic - left on Beverly Glen - right on Pico - resume west bound on Pico (this will take roughly 15 minutes per Century City #3 schedule).
Total new travel time between Century Park East and Beverly Glen ~ 20 minutes (8 traffic lights, 3 left turns, 3 rights turns) Current travel time between Century Park East and Beverly Glen ~ 8 minutes during peak hour (5 traffic lights, no turns)
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Sept 14, 2011 21:40:31 GMT -8
Rapid 7 detour to Century City makes plenty of sense from potential ridership standpoint but the reality is that it will add at least 12 minutes to the run time... not that feasible in my opinion. - West bound on Pico - right turn on Century Park East, left on Constellation (depending on timing of the light at Olympic, this will take 4 to 5 minutes) - New stop at Constellation/Ave of The Stars (up to 90 seconds for red light and dwell time) - Left on Century Park West - right on Olympic - left on Beverly Glen - right on Pico - resume west bound on Pico (this will take roughly 15 minutes per Century City #3 schedule). Total new travel time between Century Park East and Beverly Glen ~ 20 minutes (8 traffic lights, 3 left turns, 3 rights turns) Current travel time between Century Park East and Beverly Glen ~ 8 minutes during peak hour (5 traffic lights, no turns) When I read this, I had to take a seat and scratch my head. 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? While I can appreciate the benefit of deviating from the direct route to service some of Century City - I would think it more logical to make that a feature of the remaining Local 7 service.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 14, 2011 22:20:52 GMT -8
Actually, I think Big Blue Bus should come out with the Rapid 5 bus when they do their next schedule adjustment in February/March with the opening of the Venice/Robertson station.
The Rapid 5 can replicate the Regular 5 route. I think ridership is going to skyrocket on the 5 bus when riders find out this bus connects Metro rail to Century City.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 15, 2011 10:14:26 GMT -8
Rapid 7 detour to Century City makes plenty of sense from potential ridership standpoint but the reality is that it will add at least 12 minutes to the run time... not that feasible in my opinion. - West bound on Pico - right turn on Century Park East, left on Constellation (depending on timing of the light at Olympic, this will take 4 to 5 minutes) - New stop at Constellation/Ave of The Stars (up to 90 seconds for red light and dwell time) - Left on Century Park West - right on Olympic - left on Beverly Glen - right on Pico - resume west bound on Pico (this will take roughly 15 minutes per Century City #3 schedule). Total new travel time between Century Park East and Beverly Glen ~ 20 minutes (8 traffic lights, 3 left turns, 3 rights turns) Current travel time between Century Park East and Beverly Glen ~ 8 minutes during peak hour (5 traffic lights, no turns) When I read this, I had to take a seat and scratch my head. 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? While I can appreciate the benefit of deviating from the direct route to service some of Century City - I would think it more logical to make that a feature of the remaining Local 7 service. No, I'm pointing out how illogical it would be to do something like that on Rapid 7.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 16, 2011 8:40:32 GMT -8
The Local 7 service has been screwed up by this. The other day, FOUR local 7's came at the same time. Some people had been waiting up to one hour for a local bus.
This is not an argument against the Rapid 7. In fact, I wish the Rapid 7 went to Wilshire/Vermont for one-seat transfers to the Red Line.
However, there are still a lot of people who need that Local 7 and there clearly are some operational issues that need to be figured out. The Local 7's are full, standing-room, if there is still standing room.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 16, 2011 9:38:47 GMT -8
The Local 7 service has been screwed up by this. The other day, FOUR local 7's came at the same time. Some people had been waiting up to one hour for a local bus. This is not an argument against the Rapid 7. In fact, I wish the Rapid 7 went to Wilshire/Vermont for one-seat transfers to the Red Line. However, there are still a lot of people who need that Local 7 and there clearly are some operational issues that need to be figured out. The Local 7's are full, standing-room, if there is still standing room. Rapid 7's are standing room only. Let's not make this Local v. Rapid...we need more service. The Pico corridor deserves good service.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Sept 16, 2011 9:57:06 GMT -8
It's a debate about the best way to use resources, right now I think you could make the argument that running two separate lines is wasteful, there should be one line and it should go to wilshire/western.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 16, 2011 10:01:37 GMT -8
It's a debate about the best way to use resources, right now I think you could make the argument that running two separate lines is wasteful, there should be one line and it should go to wilshire/western. Some corridors deserve a Local and Rapid service. Pico boulevard is one of those corridors. If you board the Rapid......it's always nearly standing room only between Pico/28th and Pico/Robertson. Even with the new larger buses, there was more demand to move more people. When the ridership stats come out, I'm sure the number of riders will be much larger. I can sense another Rapid v. Local debate happening, but some corridors NEED it. This corridor, is as deserving like SM boulevard, Vermont, Western, Fairfax, Venice, etc.... (Note: I specifically don't compare to Wilshire because that is it's own animal)
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Sept 16, 2011 10:48:32 GMT -8
The Local 7 service has been screwed up by this. The other day, FOUR local 7's came at the same time. Some people had been waiting up to one hour for a local bus. This is not an argument against the Rapid 7. In fact, I wish the Rapid 7 went to Wilshire/Vermont for one-seat transfers to the Red Line. However, there are still a lot of people who need that Local 7 and there clearly are some operational issues that need to be figured out. The Local 7's are full, standing-room, if there is still standing room. Rapid 7's are standing room only. Let's not make this Local v. Rapid...we need more service. The Pico corridor deserves good service. The occasional SRO conditions are aggravated by, if not caused by, the service segregation. What we really need is a bus lane.
|
|