Comments: 
Categories: 
Bookmark the The Metro Board of Directors voted 7 to 6 on Thursday morning to approve changes to Metro bus service, including the cutting and shortening of some lines. The changes are scheduled to go into effect June 26.
The changes amount to about 300,000 hours of service annually — about 100,000 hours less than originally proposed by Metro staff earlier this year. Metro CEO Art Leahy told the Board of Directors that the cuts will help remove low ridership lines and duplicative service from the Metro bus system and that the money saved — about $32 million annually — will help produce a balanced budget for Metro.
Nine million of those dollars will go back into the bus system. Leahy said that the money will also allow him to reallocate 212 Metro employees to improve the cleanliness and maintenance of buses and to work on a real-time system to improve on-time performance.
The yes votes were by the following Board members: Pam O’Connor, Zev Yarolsavsky, Ara Najarian, Mike Antonovich, Don Knabe, Diane DuBois and John Fasana.
The no votes were by the following Board members: Antonio Villaraigosa, Richard Katz, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Mel Wilson, Jose Huizar and Gloria Molina.
“I’m not convinced that all this does is consolidate and make [the bus system] more efficient,” said Villaraigosa. “I can’t find myself being convinced of that argument.”
Lines impacted include the 26, 71, 94, 96, 155, 217, 230, 247, 254, 445, 450x, 485, 577, 634, 751, 757, 760 and 794. Some lines will be shortened, some expanded and some will not run on some times or days. Please see the full list of changes beginning on page 15 of this Metro staff report. In addition, the Board approved a number of bus service changes that will go into effect 90 days after the Expo Line light rail opens; those changes are on page 17 of the staff report.
The lines that will be entirely discontinued are the 26, 247, 445 and the 634. Existing bus service will replace those lines and/or Metro will modify existing service to replace those lines.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post erroneously stated that the 757 Rapid Bus on Western Avenue will be discontinued. It will continue service on weekdays and articulated bus service on Western will be bulked up.
In discussion, Supervisor Gloria Molina asked Leahy if the service changes were motivated by cost savings alone — i.e. was he looking to carve a particular dollar amount from the Metro budget. Leahy answered no, that the changes were motivated by removing low-ridership lines and duplicative service so that resources could be used to improve the rest of the system.
The Board also approved a motion asking for a report on service changes by Metro and other local transit agencies since 1997. In addition, the motion asked Metro staff to develop a policy on how savings from service reductions are reinvested and criteria for ensuring continued service in the future to “regionally significant destinations.” The motion was by Mayor Villaraigosa, Supervisor Molina and Mel Wilson, a city of Los Angeles appointee to the Board.
Metro staff will provide that information to the Board next month, giving them the chance to possibly reconsider the service changes if they find the information to be troubling or problematic.
Several dozen members of the public testified to the Board of Directors, including many members of the Bus Riders Union. Many protested that the changes will inconvenience them and make it more difficult to reach their jobs.
Over the past three months, Metro held six public hearings about the service cuts with more than 300 people testifying. The proposed changes were also approved by the five community-based Service Councils that advise Metro staff on bus service in different parts of L.A. County.
@khw
Metro does plan their bus service to interact with their rail line. In their 2011 bus service changes one can see a list of new bus operations designed to integrate service with the soon to be opened Expo Line. Also the Park and Ride Lots only account for about 10% or less of Metro Rail’s ridership so I doubt metro is designing its system to entirely accommodate the private automobile but I would prefer that they charge for their parking lots and not provide those spaces free.
@khw
“Personally I think measure R is design for rail projects (including metro link)”
Well what you think and what was approved by the voters is certainly not the same. 20% goes to bus operations. Yes there is a big chunk for rail, because most people want rail. Measure R is also funding highway improvements. So to say it is only for rail is disingenuous.
“http://www.metro.net/measurer/images/expenditure_plan.pdf
As Line 176 is the only Metro line stopping at the Mission Gold Line Station, it should be turned over into Montebello 30, since it really lacks weekend/holiday service at that station. Line 258 between Firestone Boulevard and Alondra Boulevard (on Garfield Avenue) should also be turned over into Montebello Line 30, which would fill the void on weekends and holidays. Line 258, as proposed, is supposed to extend to serve CSULA and connect with Line 79 on Huntington Drive. Normandie Avenue really lacks bus service on weekends and holidays between Imperial Highway and 135th Street, Gardena line 4 SHOULD extend to Imperial Hwy from 135th Street to fill that weekend/holiday void in and connect with Gardena 5 (on El Segundo Boulevard) and Line 120 (on Imperial Highway).
Metro Lines 30 and 730 were previously planned to get turned over into Santa Monica lines 7 and Rapid 7, to become a single line on Pico Boulevard between Downtown LA and Santa Monica, as I’ve seen thru another proposal for the Expo Line. This helps lessen transfers.
Metro Lines 35 and 335 should get turned over into Culver City line 1, becoming a single line on Washington Boulevard between Venice and Union Station, and replacing the former Line 58 on Alameda St.
I think Line 217 should instead kept its current route, and extend to LAX Transit Hub via Line 439 on La Cienega and La Tijera Boulevard, to replace Line 42 and Line 42 should instead terminate at Fox Hills Transit Hub. Then Lines 180 and 181 should shorten back at Vermont/Sunset Red Line to connect with Lines 204/754. Then Line 780 would still remain the same as is, with a suggested eastern terminal moved to Sierra Madre Villa Station, providing a direct connection with the Gold Line and the proposed southern terminal at La Cienega Expo Line Station
So…..which is it. The text said that the 757 was spared, while the March 24th document said it will be downgraded to limited service.
Hi O’Dawg;
The 757′s weekday service was preserved. One of the reports to the Board of Directors did not reflect that weekday service was going to be continued, thus the source of the confusion. My apologies,
Steve Hymon
Editor, The Source
I have been a recent convert to public transportation. Commuting to work over the last 25 was never even close to convenient, but now that I work from my home, Metro has been a easy way to get from San Pedro to downtown.
Generally, service in San Pedro is similar to that of a rural area compared to service I’ve experienced while visiting east coast cities.
Service on lines 445, 246, 247 and 550 is generally an hourly service.
Lines 446 and 447 with service to San Pedro were eliminated last year and shortened to lines 246 and 247. That left line 445 as the only provider of direct service to downtown Los Angeles.
The elimination of lines 445 and 247 will make Metro too inconvenient to even consider.
The changes will put me and others back in the driver’s seat. If the goal was to put more drivers on the road—the goal will be accomplished with this action.
Those who are unable to drive will need to wait in the cold, heat and rain while they wait for infrequent service (especially night and weekend) at the Artesia Transit Center.
The only advice I can give those people is to move out of the City of Los Angeles (San Pedro) and get someplace with direct service like Torrance or Long Beach.
In general, if you don’t live near light rail, the municipal bus lines seem to be doing a much better job than MTA.
See you on the freeway!
Dean, I share your frustrations about the San Pedro area.
I don’t like what has happened with the Harbor Freeway services. The Silver Line has made a fine mess of things.
I think Metro has made the Silver Line a “walled garden” service (where it will be the only thing along the Harbor Transitway) because of the upcoming toll lanes project. Since the transit component of toll lane revenue must be spent directly on the corridor itself, the Silver Line is a “pure” service that makes sure there’s no argument over funding being diverted outside the Harbor Freeway corridor.
A local/express bus, like the once-440s were, would raise legal questions of how to appropriate costs. Subsidizing 440s service would be OK for the freeway parts, but might be forbidden for the street-running parts in the South Bay and San Pedro. With a hybrid line like that, it’s hard to appropriate costs.
Although, Dean, my solution in San Pedro would have been similar to what Metro has done with the routes now.
I’d turn over the local San Pedro lines to LADOT. They could be DASH-branded, or a separate component that charges higher than DASH’s 35 cents but less than Metro’s $1.50 (like Line 142).
Routes would meet in downtown San Pedro, and the Silver Line would now run all the way to downtown San Pedro. It would serve the forgotten freeway stops at Carson Street and PCH, and still get you to downtown in about 30-45 minutes.