LA Metro Bus Service; Rapid and Express (Pasadena, Orange: sales, big house)

[waltlantz]

I've been reading about Bus Rapid Transit, seems interesting.

How do people rate the level of Rapid or Express bus service? Is it timely and functional in it's various corridors?

[sirinyat]

I live along Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica and commute to Westwood. I love the Metro Rapid service along Wilshire. The buses are longer and have three doors, and the route stops every mile or so.

[BRinSM]

they're better than local buses, but they still have to sit in the same traffic as everyone else.

[HarryKerry]

However, along Wilshire, especially at the Wilshire/Western subway, the Metro Rapids become saturated. One reporter told of his commute to his Miracle Mile office as mostly positive, especially the subway, but said that, sadly, it was the Metro Rapid, all the buses along Wilshire, that presented the low point and biggest challenge to his commute. I used to public transit that area myself, and I was not surprised. Sometimes, there isn't enough room on the Merto Rapid to accommodate all of us at Wilshire/Western and we can't get on that bus. Standees for too long.

Some Metro Rapids are a bit of a joke, such as the one serving Atlantic Blvd. through Monterey Park and East LA. I have never seen more than 10 people on those, and it seems more people want to board the locals rather than the Metro Rapid. Actually a blogger has just such a criticism, that the MTA is so enamored with Metro Rapid that the start service along blvds. that don't really need them or at least, end up serving far too few people. One has to wonder if the MTA puts Metro Rapid service on some corridors just to they can quell critics of the bus component and say, "but look, we have all these Metro Rapids."

I've talked to a few users of the Orange Line--the dedicated bus lanes that run like a rail line but use buses, and they say that during the rush hours, the Orange Line is saturated and some people can't board the buses due to the overcrowding. And this brings the point of the MTA giving color line designations to BUS services. traditionally, color line designations had been reserved for RAIL lines. It's as if the MTA is trying to imbue its inferior (compared to rail) bus lines with the best notions of its rail lines. This is, at least, disingenuous, as in the Silver Line, which is a BUS line, not rail. Such is our LACMTA.

The truth is that many corridors with Metro Rapids and the Orange Line have ridership levels that are best served by a rail line. While heavy rail subway is the only solution for the Wilshire corridor, even a light rail line along the current Orange Line bus route could accommodate everyone, much like the Blue line light rail had trains running every 3 minutes before they extended the platforms and added an additional car bringing headways down to about 5 minutes apart. Let's hope 30/10 becomes a reality sooner than later.

[uptown_urbanist]

I haven't lived in LA for a few years so things may have changed, but I used to take a Rapid bus for my daily commute and rarely had problems with it. It ran on time, and it was much, much faster than the regular bus. Still, as noted, the Wilshire corridor is saturated, but despite that, the Rapids there are still faster than the locals (and the congestion on Wilshire is why that corridor so desperately needs a subway). Mine was the 780 from Hollywood to Pasadena, and it was wonderful. Perhaps the Rapids aren't perfect and not every route needs them, but they do speed up longer rides. I wish my current city had the equivalent.

[K 22]

Originally Posted by HarryKerry

I've talked to a few users of the Orange Line--the dedicated bus lanes that run like a rail line but use buses, and they say that during the rush hours, the Orange Line is saturated and some people can't board the buses due to the overcrowding. And this brings the point of the MTA giving color line designations to BUS services. traditionally, color line designations had been reserved for RAIL lines. It's as if the MTA is trying to imbue its inferior (compared to rail) bus lines with the best notions of its rail lines. This is, at least, disingenuous, as in the Silver Line, which is a BUS line, not rail. Such is our LACMTA.

The truth is that many corridors with Metro Rapids and the Orange Line have ridership levels that are best served by a rail line. While heavy rail subway is the only solution for the Wilshire corridor, even a light rail line along the current Orange Line bus route could accommodate everyone, much like the Blue line light rail had trains running every 3 minutes before they extended the platforms and added an additional car bringing headways down to about 5 minutes apart. Let's hope 30/10 becomes a reality sooner than later.

It's a shame the direction Metro took (or forced to take?) with the Orange Line b/c it's going to be really painful if/when ever the day comes they have to convert it to rail.

Same with the Silver Line. Would the Silver Line have been better off as dedicated light rail lines on the freeways and as a light rail subway under Figueroa Street and then 1st Street?

[the one]

its pretty good. but most lines dont run all night or late into the evening.

i like the rapids. especially the 720. ive rode that one from SaMo to ELA.

Originally Posted by waltlantz

I've been reading about Bus Rapid Transit, seems interesting.

How do people rate the level of Rapid or Express bus service? Is it timely and functional in it's various corridors?

[HarryKerry]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I haven't lived in LA for a few years so things may have changed, but I used to take a Rapid bus for my daily commute and rarely had problems with it. It ran on time, and it was much, much faster than the regular bus. Still, as noted, the Wilshire corridor is saturated, but despite that, the Rapids there are still faster than the locals (and the congestion on Wilshire is why that corridor so desperately needs a subway). Mine was the 780 from Hollywood to Pasadena, and it was wonderful. Perhaps the Rapids aren't perfect and not every route needs them, but they do speed up longer rides. I wish my current city had the equivalent.

Interesting because I believe the MTA is going to either greatly cut or eliminate the 780 Hollywood to Pasadena, and it is most likely because it was too "wonderful" meaning not enough ridership, and with the financial pressures on the MTA now, they don't have the money to be wasting it on low ridership Rapids.

[HarryKerry]

Originally Posted by K 22

It's a shame the direction Metro took (or forced to take?) with the Orange Line b/c it's going to be really painful if/when ever the day comes they have to convert it to rail.

Same with the Silver Line. Would the Silver Line have been better off as dedicated light rail lines on the freeways and as a light rail subway under Figueroa Street and then 1st Street?

Actually, CatTrans did design the Harbor Fwy Transit Way (now served by buses) so that it can be converted to rail. At the time of construction, the MTA had to deal with the 1990's recession and lower revenue from the sales taxes and had to cancel construction of the Gold Line (later built by separate legislation), but finish the Green Line and Red Line subway (any subway's construction costs are enormous) and they were still under the consent decree to spend millions more on its bus fleet and system. Put simply, there was no money to have the Harbor Transit Way as a rail line from the start. However, your suggestion is a good one; let's hope they get to converting it rail at some point, but I don't think is part of 30/10, which means we will all be dead before it is converted to rail. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Expo Line will run on a portion of Figuroa/Flower right next to the Harbor Fwy with the Harbor Transit Way a stone's throw away. Which brings us to another consideration: How in the world is the MTA going to run the Expo and Blue lines efficiently when they are going to share the same tracks at Washing ton Blvd. into the Pico Station and 7th Street Metro Center? The Red and Purple lines subway is operated in full automation during the rush hours and computers can run trains fairly close together safely, but our LRT's have limited computer control that don't allow for full automation, and Blue Line trains are running about 5 minutes apart during the rush, and Expo has to squeeze in between while likely being delayed due to its running at grade level rather than in a tunnel, and the Expo could run at nearly the same headways as the Blue. And how will they deal with the terrible platform situation at 7th Street? I suppose one side dedicated to each line? Still, the design of 7th Street makes for some very inconvenient ways to reach the other platform. In time, the Regional connector will be built that will allow Blue and Expo to merely make a short stop at 7th Street and continue on, thus fixing the platform problem.

Still , this means that the worst designed station of all of Metro--7th Street Metro Center--is going to get slammed hard. Ironically, when the old RTD was pitching, then constructing the subway, it had planned on the Pershing Square station being the busiest because if its proximity to the tons of buses on heavily congested Broadway and a few blocks form several office towers. Of course, we all know today (confirmed by the MTA, itself) the busiest is easily 7th Street Metro Center because of the connecting Blue line and its location in the Financial District that has far more of the high paying jobs for the hoards living in the suburbs in those big houses using Metrolink. This sure shows how agencies can get it wrong and completely not understand how people will use a proposed transit line. Although it is nice to see standing room only trains leaving in the opposite direction of Union Station at 7th Street. But 7th Street station is the saturation station for both directions, not Pershing Square as predicted by the old RTD.