|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 16, 2007 12:33:58 GMT -8
More of a posting for posterity considering I don't think any green line riders post here.
Rail System Service Information
All Rail Lines
METRO GREEN LINE TRAIN SERVICE DISRUPTED BETWEEN MARIPOSA AND EL SEGUNDO STATIONS
(10:30 a.m., Monday, April 16)
Metro Green Line train service has been disrupted between Mariposa and El Segundo Stations due to a broken train system power line that occurred at 5:30 a.m. this morning. Repair crews are now working to fix the problem, but an estimated time of repair and resumption of normal train service has not yet been determined.
Metro has set up shuttle bus service to transport Metro Green Line passengers between the two affected stations. Passengers should expect up to 20 minute delays until further notice.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 5, 2008 10:34:13 GMT -8
The Green Line has become *very* crowded lately, due to prices topping $4.35 a gallon. I'm sure this phenomenon is being felt in other parts of the system as well.
Sooner or later, the MTA is going to have to increase the number of trains and buses during rush hours, to absorb the increased demand. Hopefully, it's sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 5, 2008 15:10:24 GMT -8
I assume that you've read most of the articles concerning this. Ridership is WAY up, but to meet that demand you need to run more frequently. The gas price spike affects transit operators or well, so we may have to swallow another fare increase.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 5, 2008 22:16:07 GMT -8
I agree now is the time to try to impress passengers with a comfortable ride not turn them off permanently by offering too few trains. Obviously, it is a money issue, but why don't they take any advertising money and put it to more trains and shorter headways. $4.35 gas is advertising enough...
As for extending the Gold Line to OC, I agree that a Green Line extension to the Norwalk Metrolink is much more realistic and a more appropriate goal at least in my lifetime.
Finally, the CALHSR issue with Union Pacific has me concerned as I am such a big high speed rail supporter. This is a critical issue for HSR. I hope someone has some answers for this before public opinion turns against it, even with $4.35 a gallon gas.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 6, 2008 8:01:19 GMT -8
Rising cost of gas means higher demand for transit. Therefore, I think now is the time to implement some increase in fares.
An increase from $1.50 to $1.75 is a 16% increase. The price of gasoline has gone up that much in the last five weeks alone!!! The extra 25 cents per fare would result in a very large increase in revenues, since the alternative is driving a car for $4.39/gallon.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 6, 2008 15:16:09 GMT -8
Our fares are lower than they could be, but they're already on schedule to go up for the next couple of years. I think that we're committed to that and I don't see any reason to have fares rise and fall with the price of gas. Besides through April only the gold line was much above the ridership levels of one year ago. May could be a lot higher considering how much gas has gone up in the last month.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 6, 2008 15:39:38 GMT -8
Our fares are lower than they could be, but they're already on schedule to go up for the next couple of years. I think that we're committed to that and I don't see any reason to have fares rise and fall with the price of gas. Besides through April only the gold line was much above the ridership levels of one year ago. May could be a lot higher considering how much gas has gone up in the last month. I agree. The ideal would be to have the gas tax spillover go to fund mass transit in times of high gas prices as it is designed to do in CA. However, this money still keeps getting diverted to other sources to cover budget shortfalls, despite demands by the voters through initiatives that this not take place. We could be looking at $4.75 gas in a couple of weeks. I'd like to see some federal help for mass transit instead of shelling out another $150 Billion tax rebate that will just be spent on more gasoline, which just exacerbates the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 7, 2008 4:42:27 GMT -8
However, this money still keeps getting diverted to other sources to cover budget shortfalls, despite demands by the voters through initiatives that this not take place. You know why it happened, and why we'll never see that money again? California gave a reasonable exception to legislators saying that the money can be diverted to pay off a statewide fiscal crisis in emergencies only. Well, the exception was invoked in one year and has now become operating procedure in Sacramento. Here's why. Lawmakers can now always run up the credit card knowing that they can pull the fiscal crisis circuit breaker and balance a budget by dipping into the transportation pot. They don't want to solve the budget problem, since it cuts off this revenue. The only way around this is not to make even more stringent laws telling the legislature that no means no. They'll go to court and win. Courts can and do uphold the deliberative rights and duties of elected lawmakers. The only effective means of stopping the mischief is also the most painful. We must demand more devolution of functions from the state and pay for it ourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Jun 25, 2008 11:01:45 GMT -8
I think we missed another service alert. i was running late for work today and it looks like the trains west of rosa parks are runing on one track. Anyone know what they are doing? Will this happen at rush hour, because if it does the trains are going to be packed.
|
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Jun 25, 2008 11:31:14 GMT -8
I agree now is the time to try to impress passengers with a comfortable ride not turn them off permanently by offering too few trains. . I think the buses will turning people off more than trains will. Monday morning two new riders appeared at my local bus stop. the bus is supposed to get there about 7:00am they told me a bus had gone buy as they got there around 7:45 so i then told them the next one shows up at about 7:20-7:30. well when that didn't happen she called a cab and left taking the other rider with her. so a bus that is supposed to run every thirty minutes ran fifteen minutes early and 15 minutes late making my wait almost an hour. (By the way its line 266 and its run by Southland transit) I haven seen those two riders since. The train though is solid last weekend I went to Vegas with two buddies of mine. We needed a rental, catch was we needed to get to the airport and get it. They really didn't feel like driving out there during rush hour on Thursday and because they own gas guzzlers. So they actually asked me if they could take the train. I told them yes but it doesn't go to the airport but it leave you close by. And we we can take the free shuttle from there. They loved it and asked me all kinds of questions about it. What time do the trains run is it 24 hours, why didn't they make go to the airport. They only had two complaints, the stations are too loud and why aren't there displays telling you when the train will arrive. Both have told me that they felt foolish for not using it before to go to the airport. both will use it again when they travel. Especially when it costs a 1.25 to get to the airport. Trains do a better job of getting people to ride. Buses need to do a better job of connecting those stations. if there was more frequency on lines that connected to train stations i think you would see even more ridership. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 26, 2008 12:33:05 GMT -8
I think we missed another service alert. i was running late for work today and it looks like the trains west of rosa parks are runing on one track. Anyone know what they are doing? Will this happen at rush hour, because if it does the trains are going to be packed. Yeah, I saw the alert scrolling on the monitors at the blue line stations, but they never added anything to the web page. According to the scrolling information they were single tracking for maintenance between 9am and 3pm. |
|
