|
Post by jamesinclair on May 3, 2011 23:30:01 GMT -8
A few post up, I mentioned that the silver line stuff kept getting delayed.
Well, it happened again!
February 2012
Install CCTVs and digital message signs at Harbor Transitway stations/parking lots. Transit signal priority in Los Angeles. Metro Silver Line will have partial bus signal priority in Downtown Los Angeles.
This was originally scheduled for December 2010, then March 2011.
Now Feb 2012. What a joke!
This one is worse
April 2013 * Enhance rider access. Metro Silver Line will connect to Union Station’s Patsaouras Transit Plaza in Downtown Los Angeles via an island stop on the El Monte Busway. This provides riders direct access to Metro’s region-wide bus and rail network, as well as Metrolink and Amtrak.
It was June 2010, and then December 2010!
Now April 2013?
Is blatant lieing like this allowed?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 4, 2011 8:18:54 GMT -8
Looking at the timetable, the Silver Line runs 30 minute headways (south of Downtown - the route to El Monte is always every 15 minutes or better) from 8:30 to 3:20, about 7 hours. The route takes 25 to 30 minutes each way, so it would take 2 additional buses to double service during those times. At Metro's cost of about $100 per hour for bus costs, this would cost about $1,500 per week day, or less than $400,000 per year. It runs once an hour on weekends on the Downtown LA to South Bay segment. Absolutely pathetic...especially for a color coded line.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jan 20, 2012 19:59:18 GMT -8
FYI, Metro has posted two board reports regarding the Silver Line. The first report explains the history and performance of the Silver Line. It also outlines the service increases we will see before the ExpressLanes open. The second report explains Metro's plans to improve mid-line stations along the Silver Line. Improvements may include concession stands and convenience stores, special event services, improved signage, electronic information displays, additional CCTV cameras, and enhanced marketing efforts.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jan 20, 2012 21:54:37 GMT -8
"Since opening day, patronage has climbed steadily each month to a high of more than 11,000 in October 2011"
Sounds like it needs it own ridership chart!
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 19, 2012 6:59:26 GMT -8
"Since opening day, patronage has climbed steadily each month to a high of more than 11,000 in October 2011" Sounds like it needs it own ridership chart! I saw this posted in a recent Source article devoted to the ridership increase in January and February: Note that they show individual numbers for the Silver Line finally. Unfortunately, if you go directly to the ridership page, you don't get to see the Silver Line numbers. It's like they have a better ridership spreadsheet somewhere that shows the Silver Line data, but they aren't posting it on the ridership page It is good to see that the numbers are getting much better. That investment has to be one of the most underutilized ever in LA County, on a $/rider perspective. RT
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 19, 2012 8:40:39 GMT -8
Could this line be extended south to San Pedro and further east potentially?
It would be really nice if it ran in transit only l lanes downtown.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 19, 2012 9:10:09 GMT -8
Could this line be extended south to San Pedro and further east potentially? It would be really nice if it ran in transit only l lanes downtown. The route itself is already very long, I've actually talked to Metro staff about a southern extension but it looks highly unlikely because of the routes length and the difficulty of laying over in San Pedro. An extension to the east is out of the question because it would increase service duplication, also it makes a lot of operational sense to end at El Monte Station because it essentially eliminates A lot of deadheading.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 19, 2012 13:35:44 GMT -8
Extending the service further east also will result in a turf battle with Foothill Transit Silver Streak. I think there is very little appetite at Metro to shake things up that way. They gave in to FT's protest about Silver Line charging regular fare ($1.25 instead of freeway zone fare) so I doubt they will want to revisit any new routing that will further duplicate Silver Streak.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Mar 19, 2012 13:58:57 GMT -8
Instead of extending the service, make it better. off peak frequencies are still dreadful. 11,000 riders a day is enough to justify 15 minutes all day, every day, at worst.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 19, 2012 15:31:33 GMT -8
Night time ridership currently does not justify 15 minute service for late night, that being said there are indeed plans to improve frequencies in June, then again in December.
|
|
|
Post by calwatch on Apr 3, 2012 21:47:30 GMT -8
MTA staff does want to go to 30 minutes at night - www.metro.net/board/Items/2012/01_January/20120118OPItem64.pdf - but it will not happen in the June shakeup, unfortunately. Foothill is being killed on the Silver Streak because of their higher fare and so they have agreed to begin talks to "coordinate" service - file.lacounty.gov/compub/agenda/2004/cms1_137659.pdf, second to last page. This is evident when you visit El Monte Station on any given weekday morning, or observe passengers getting off in the afternoon. Hardly any passengers get on at El Monte. Pre Silver Line most people boarding at El Monte would get on the first bus since the differential was not excessive. Even with the old terminal, where Silver Streak and Silver Line boarded right next to each other (rather than across a wide gulf where they yell at you if you run across), most people picked Silver Line once it started. The $5 day pass is a huge reason since it allows for transfers and errands during the day, but Foothill's lazy scheduling and strict transfer and senior/disabled discount policy also has something to do with it. I see people board with Foothill paper transfers on Silver Line quite frequently, because the $1 upcharge is less than $1.50, and also a lot of EZ Pass holders choosing to save 50 cents by walking over to the other platform. The other benefit is that Silver Line operates on schedule, with the bus boarding passengers before it's time to leave and ready to depart on the dot. Silver Streak is unreliable because of freeway traffic to the east, yet when it arrives early it sits there to catch up with the clock, even when operating at peak frequency, thus destroying the BRT nature of the service. On weekends you might as well throw away the schedule because the Silver Streak deviates to serve the Cal State and Hospital stations (even when the physical busway is open), and does not use the carpool lanes at all (again, even when the carpool lane is open). I spoke with a driver about this and they indicated that it is easier just to give one route rather than to force the driver to make a decision (of course, it is chaos when the night road work closes onramps, or sometimes I-10 completely, but that's a whole other story). Meanwhile MTA trusts drivers to be intelligent and so the Silver Line serves busway stops, and uses the busway, when it is open (and skips them completely when they are not). Long term Metro staff is aware that they need to bring Silver Line up to rail like frequencies. That could result in the last trip being cut back, though, since it leaves later than all other rail lines. 30 minute night service has to be used first before they make the jump to 20. The question is when Foothill will pull the plug on the Silver Streak. I would convert it to Phoenix Rapid-style operation during peak and middays, with no night service. Re-extend the 480 to El Monte evenings and weekends. Then you can send Silver Line to rail like frequencies. Also when fares go up to $2 as they will eventually, the surcharge for Silver Line should be dropped at that point.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Apr 3, 2012 23:29:48 GMT -8
Night time ridership currently does not justify 15 minute service for late night, that being said there are indeed plans to improve frequencies in June, then again in December. Classic vortex of doom. "Why if nobody is using the garbage service, clearly we should make it worse!"
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 4, 2012 12:39:24 GMT -8
That's not what I was implying at all.. I'm saying you can't go from 60 to 15 minute service in one shakeup, because a dramatic increase in frequency won't make up for the lack of demand that quickly, you have to build it slowly over time. Otherwise, you'll just be wasting resources and taking service away from places that may need it. In addition to this, the feeder services need to have either a greater service span or higher frequency to make the increase in frequency useful.
calwatch, Silver Streak has scheduling problems -- well, actually all of Foothill Transit does. Their schedules don't use realistic times for different times of day, instead their schedules are based on one running time for an entire day. They now have GPS (AVL) on their buses so I'm hoping they're working to improving this situation by utilizing those tools that come with that kind of package. The other problem is this line is pretty long and runs in mixed freeway traffic instead of HOV east of el monte, which makes it unreliable.
Aside from the Silver Line fare structure, Silver Streak is pretty well designed, the real problem is that they still compete with themselves with lines like 497 and 699 instead of feeding everything they have to Silver Streak.
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Apr 9, 2012 10:32:26 GMT -8
Could this line be extended south to San Pedro and further east potentially? It would be really nice if it ran in transit only l lanes downtown. Maybe they can lobby Long Beach or torrance transit to run service from the blue line terminus to the Harbor gateway transit center that stops at those under utilized lines. i wonder if the ridership is there for folks trying to get to long beach or the south bay. And why doesnt the 448 commuter express stop at the Carson station? it bypasses and exits at PCH. i hope monies collected from the tolls also helps improve Service and security and those two stations.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 9, 2012 10:47:29 GMT -8
I don't understand why Metro charges more when the bus or BRT is on a freeway... is it really a time advantage worth the extra money? I rode one of these for a year and it was slow, but annoyingly expensive - so I bought a car. Trains and all bus lines should be the same amount.
Someday soon, IMHO, Metro will switch to a distance based fare.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 9, 2012 11:19:23 GMT -8
I don't understand why Metro charges more when the bus or BRT is on a freeway... is it really a time advantage worth the extra money? I rode one of these for a year and it was slow, but annoyingly expensive - so I bought a car. Trains and all bus lines should be the same amount. Someday soon, IMHO, Metro will switch to a distance based fare. The original reason for freeway zone fare is because the buses were running "express" service and thus commands a premium from "local" service that took surface streets. I think it is a fair charge if it does involve faster service... but can be debatable. When Metro received Federal funds to convert El Monte Bus Way and Harbor Bus Way to HOT lanes, one of the stipulation was that Metro will "improve bus service" on this corridor. Metro's specific offer was to charge regular fares on the corridor (i.e. $1.50 per boarding) and improve frequencies. Thus the services were consolidated into Silver Line in anticipation of the fare restructuring. However, this did not happen... and the reason buses currently charge zone fare on freeway is because Foothill Transit made such a big fuss about Metro trying to "steal" its Silver Streak business, that Metro concluded it wasn't worth going nuclear over turf battles.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 9, 2012 17:39:14 GMT -8
Actually, the zone fare is charged to make up for the lack of boardings/alightings that come with running without stopping.
By this I mean, a local line has a constant churn of customers as it goes along its route, so they cost less to operate. Freeway Express services don't. Often, people ride for long periods and after a certain point, when the bus enters the freeway for example, there are little to no boardings/alightings at all. Why does this increase costs? Because the operator, generally the largest cost of operating a bus route is being paid for the time they have to drive while there is no customer activity. The zone charge exists to offset this.
Routes where people ride for long periods of time make for expensive transit service. So while you may see butts in the seats it doesn't really mean the service is being productive in terms of costs. Don't confuse this from being a success though, some routes are designed to be like this.
|
|
|
Post by calwatch on Apr 10, 2012 19:17:24 GMT -8
The counterbalance is that you will have people who will prefer to ride local service over the express, and they occupy more seat time and thus cost the agency more. For example, consider the passengers on the 745 or Blue Line who could be taking the Silver Line, but because of the higher fare use the local or rail and require added service, or send the Blue Line to capacity. I know there are some end to end 770 and 70 riders... sometimes I am one of them. Metro staff has looked into a way to accommodate Harbor people while not running afoul of Foothill and their champion on the Board, the SGV representative John Fasana.
Unfortunately all of them, like charging an exit fare at El Monte or charging different fares for passengers north of a certain point in Downtown, are unpractical and cause even more customer confusion than the flat fare. There is probably a "ransom" price that Metro could pay Foothill which could make this all go away, but no one really wants to do it, and where would the money come from anyway? And the other issues with the Silver Streak, like lazy scheduling, delays due to the permanent detour, and long boarding times (due to cash payments, as compared to the actual fare amount) don't resolve themselves when you take care of the fare.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 11, 2012 18:55:19 GMT -8
The counterbalance is that you will have people who will prefer to ride local service over the express, and they occupy more seat time and thus cost the agency more. For example, consider the passengers on the 745 or Blue Line who could be taking the Silver Line, but because of the higher fare use the local or rail and require added service, or send the Blue Line to capacity. I know there are some end to end 770 and 70 riders... sometimes I am one of them. Metro staff has looked into a way to accommodate Harbor people while not running afoul of Foothill and their champion on the Board, the SGV representative John Fasana. Unfortunately all of them, like charging an exit fare at El Monte or charging different fares for passengers north of a certain point in Downtown, are unpractical and cause even more customer confusion than the flat fare. There is probably a "ransom" price that Metro could pay Foothill which could make this all go away, but no one really wants to do it, and where would the money come from anyway? And the other issues with the Silver Streak, like lazy scheduling, delays due to the permanent detour, and long boarding times (due to cash payments, as compared to the actual fare amount) don't resolve themselves when you take care of the fare. I think you may be missing the point, while there are end-to-end riders, they aren't as numerous as short distance riders. This is why local lines are more productive. So people who choose to ride end-to-end on a local or limited stop service aren't really pushing planners one way or the other because it's fairly normal. I do agree that the El Monte Busway needs better coordination, but it's going to be extremely difficult on both sides. Frankly, what I think you will see if better coordination when frequencies are low (so late night/early morning) and then a unified fare west of El Monte if they can agree on terms.
|
|
|
Post by calwatch on Apr 11, 2012 21:42:08 GMT -8
Well this is the solution... interoperability between passes: www.metro.net/board/Items/2012/04_April/20120418OPItem62.pdfThis is only for weekly and monthly pass holders, not the day pass holders and cash fare riders who are now a large percentage of Silver Line customers, but it will slough off some of the load off the Silver Line in the morning (the afternoon loads seem to be OK, at least based on my observation at Cal State when I wait for a Commuter Express bus). "All existing upcharges to base passes apply" which means that Metro 7 and 30 day regular passengers will still have to pay the $1.50 extra, and for the discount categories they will have to pay $2.25 or 85 cents extra, depending on time when they board, while Metro discount passengers, which are almost 50% of the total passes sold, pay no surcharge to ride the Silver Line. Foothill riders get the better of the deal, since they would be able to ride the entire length of the Silver Line to Artesia Transit Center, and their discount riders who now have to pay a surcharge 12 hours out of the day get to ride Metro Silver Line for free, which has no surcharge, and the $105 base pass is cheaper than the $119 monthly pass nominally required to ride the Silver Line (although most mornings there are quite a few people that drop the dollar surcharge in the box when the farebox beeps). I think the devil is in the details but a few of the riders could switch to Foothill, which is the only direction that is important.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 12, 2012 8:16:46 GMT -8
Is there any hope of extending the Silver Line south to San Pedro and east to say Cal Poly Pomona and Montclair? Is it just me or does the Silver Streak look like a natural extension of the Silver Line on this Foothill Transit map. These artificial forced transfers between muni operators are frustrating. There is no muni operator in San Pedro I can see on the Metro map. When I was in NYC, Metro was taking over the Queens services from the other operators. I guess transit only lanes through downtown is too much to hope for either.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 12, 2012 10:25:48 GMT -8
In the case of the Silver Line & Silver Streak the transfers aren't artificially forced by any means. Both lines are very long, long lines make it hard to be reliable, and use a lot of resources. Because of this it's extremely unlikely that there will be an extension, especially to the east where service levels are adequate.
I have talked to my colleagues at Metro about eliminating line 450 and replacing it with an extension of the Silver Line to San Pedro, but layover and route length issues are what essentially prevent this.
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Apr 18, 2012 13:06:28 GMT -8
I guess transit only lanes through downtown is too much to hope for either. ive always thought that the transit way should have connected to flower street and convert flower street up to washington into Bus only lanes. but with the expo line built it looks to complicated to even complete the transitway.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 7, 2012 16:22:23 GMT -8
Significant breakthrough in the SGV fare war. thesource.metro.net/2012/06/07/transportation-headlines-thursday-june-7/According to The Source, Foothill Transit will drop its Silver Streak fare to $2.45 - same as Metro Silver Line. But more importantly, Foothill and Metro will both accept proof of payment from the other agency so effectively, this will interline the Silver Streak and Silver Line services between El Monte Bus Depot and Union Station. During peak hours, this means the frequency nearly doubles between El Monte Bus Depot and Union Station as riders can board the first bus rather than wait for the Metro or Foothill bus base on which ticket/daily/weekly/monthly pass they carry. It's little unclear if Foothill will accept Metro monthly pass if you board at Montclair or Pomona; or if Metro will accept Foothill monthly pass at Artesia/Gateway Transit Center. But if they do, you could travel from Montclair to Gardena for only $2.45. Note: I started a new thread on the topic but then realized I could have just continued this thread. I will ask the moderator to delete the other one.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jun 7, 2012 19:26:03 GMT -8
Significant breakthrough in the SGV fare war. thesource.metro.net/2012/06/07/transportation-headlines-thursday-june-7/According to The Source, Foothill Transit will drop its Silver Streak fare to $2.45 - same as Metro Silver Line. But more importantly, Foothill and Metro will both accept proof of payment from the other agency so effectively, this will interline the Silver Streak and Silver Line services between El Monte Bus Depot and Union Station. During peak hours, this means the frequency nearly doubles between El Monte Bus Depot and Union Station as riders can board the first bus rather than wait for the Metro or Foothill bus base on which ticket/daily/weekly/monthly pass they carry. It's little unclear if Foothill will accept Metro monthly pass if you board at Montclair or Pomona; or if Metro will accept Foothill monthly pass at Artesia/Gateway Transit Center. But if they do, you could travel from Montclair to Gardena for only $2.45. Note: I started a new thread on the topic but then realized I could have just continued this thread. I will ask the moderator to delete the other one. In talking with staff recently, passes will only be accepted in the common corridors. So Downtown LA to El Monte Station
|
|
|
Post by calwatch on Jun 16, 2012 21:02:47 GMT -8
This actually is unenforceable since TAP EZ Passes will be deployed in September, concurrent with this change (El Monte Station is scheduled to open in September). We'll have to see the tariffs on this one.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 18, 2013 9:53:10 GMT -8
Reposted from Blue Line Express topic, since this is mainly about the Silver Line:
The "new" (rebranded) Silver Line has shown impressive ridership growth this year, admittedly from a very poor baseline, because it does make a reasonable alternative for people who would otherwise be transferring to the Blue Line from the western half of South LA.
Already Google Maps suggests you transfer to the Silver Line for trips to Metro Center from near Slauson, Manchester or Imperial Highway (or the Green line) west of the Silver Line. The problem is the lack of stops; with stops only every 2 miles thru South LA, the majority of areas are not within walking distance of a bus that would transfer to the Silver Line. It even lacks stops at Vernon and Florence, which both have very frequent bus service.
This suggests a problem with a limited-stop Blue Line (or Metrolink South) line: it would be hard to access for people in the middle of the route, where the blue line actually becomes crowded, between the Green Line and LA.
As someone who lived in Long Beach, I would have loved to have a faster option to LA, and I've previously posted how a Metrolink line could be constructed between Long Beach and LA. But the biggest need is for more traditional rapid transit lines, accessible by walking with stops every 1/2 mile or at least every mile.
Real BRT routes should be added on Vermont (754), Broadway (745), and Long Beach Blvd (760), and perhaps Western (757), with bus-only lanes, off-board payment and better signal priority, giving faster and more reliable trips. Many people in South LA would chose to ride these buses to their destination or transfer to Expo or the Purple Line, instead of taking an east-west bus to the Blue Line.
The Silver Line would better relieve the Blue Line if it were actually LESS limited-stop. Adding stops at Century, Vernon, Florence and MLK would add 5 minutes to the trip for people coming from San Pedro, but it would triple the number of people in South LA who could access the line, and would likely double Silver Line ridership in the southern half of the line.
If the Silver Line became sufficiently popular to support very frequent service, some buses could make the current stops (every 2 miles) or even few stops (though I would brand them as express buses), while the official "Silver Line" buses could stop every 1/2 mile or 1 mile to provide more access.
This would require spending more money on new stations, but Metro loves building stuff and could use the new "Express Lanes" as an excuse to get money for the improvements. They could add some sound walls at the same time, to cut down the freeway noise at the stations.
If after all these improvements, and after building the Santa Ana corridor light rail and a Vermont rail line, there is still crowding on the Blue Line, it would make sense to buy or rent the freight right of way and run "Metrolink" trains from Long Beach to LA Union Station (via the tracks along the bank of the LA River), as a faster service for trips all the way from Long Beach to LA, and from important intermediate stations like the Green Line, or for people who are trying to get to Union Station instead of the heart of Downtown
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 19, 2013 16:05:19 GMT -8
I saw a lot of silver line buses this weekend and I thought the branding was very distinct. Did the signal priority downtown ever get implemented?
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Dec 30, 2015 11:35:18 GMT -8
Created a version of LA Metro Rail map to include: Silver Line Express to San Pedro, Orange Line as two routes with a shared trunk (akin to Red & Purple Line), and peak hours-only Blue Line to Willow Station: Twitter
|
|