Metro proposes bus service changes in June

by ,

Metro this week formally announced public hearings for proposed bus service changes to take effect in June. Here is a list of the proposed changes and the hearings, which begin on Feb. 1. (Versión en español: after the jump)

The changes – which include some cuts — were requested by Metro CEO Art Leahy, who in nearly two years on the job has been pushing for a bus system that will emphasize quality over quantity.

Leahy has said that the present-day bus system has created a multitude of problems for the agency and its customers. Among them: too many bus lines with excessive service has led to regular budget deficits; deferred maintenance has led to buses that break down and hurt on-time performance; there’s poor schedule adherence, and Metro’s current roster of bus routes is redundant and should be better integrated with rail service provided by Metro or buses run by the 16 municipal transit agencies in Los Angeles County.

After the late 1990s, Metro increased bus service by more than one million hours. Although overall Metro ridership has increased over time, bus ridership has fallen or been flat in the past two decades. Meanwhile, Metro Rail and Metrolink ridership has steadily increased and municipal bus service has increased fourfold.

How full are Metro buses today? Overall, Metro buses are running at an average of 42 percent capacity. Of course, that doesn’t mean that all Metro buses are less than half full. Another measure to gauge bus usage is called ‘load ratio’ — the ratio of passengers to bus seats at the most crowded part of a bus route. By that count Metro’s average load factor is an average of 1.2. (For example, 48 passengers on a 40 seat bus). Many other large transit agencies are running load factors of 1.5 to 1.7.

The proposed changes help to optimize service levels to demand and results in reducing wasteful and underutilized service, according to Metro officials. In nearly all cases where lines are eliminated, they will be replaced by other Metro bus lines or by transit services within one-quarter mile of the existing line. This round of changes follows changes made in June and December of 2010, with all cuts amounting to about 13 percent of Metro bus service. That, of course, is not a trivial amount, but it’s also below bus cuts that have been made in the past couple of years at other large transit agencies.

The changes are designed to comply with recommendations made by a Blue Ribbon Committee convened by Metro to improve regional transit service. The Committee’s recommendations were adopted by the Metro Board of Directors last year and include several key strategies. Among them: emphasizing better service quality, reducing duplication of services, more coordination with municipal and other transit operators, and better integrating rail and bus service.

The decision to make the proposed service changes will ultimately be up to the Metro Board of Directors, who will likely decide the issue at their March meeting.

Some important background: Metro runs the second largest bus operation in the United States with more than 387.5 million passengers annually and buses running 1.46 billion miles a year, according to 2008 statistics from the American Public Transportation Assn. Metro’s base fare of $1.50 is lower than that of many transit agencies and fares for students, seniors, the disabled and Medicare recipients remain frozen at 2009 levels until mid-2013 due to the passage of Measure R by county voters. At present, Metro subsidizes about 71 percent of the cost of each passenger’s bus ride, an amount higher than most other large transit agencies. It’s also important to recognize that this service is augmented by Metro Rail, Metrolink and the municipal bus operators.

In many cases, the criteria for service changes was to eliminate parts of bus routes that attract too few riders, replicate other services available or could be combined with other lines so that buses can run more often on the new routes. More details will be released during the hearing process about alternative transit service that can replace any bus service that is cut. Changes will also be made to improve service quality by ensuring that overcrowding and unrealistic scheduled times are corrected.

I met recently with Metro CEO Art Leahy to discuss the changes. Here are the key points that he made:

•On why the cuts are being made: “We’ve had an artificially high level of service because of the consent decree,” he said, referring to improvements that were ordered by a court-approved mediator beginning in the late 1990s after the Bus Riders Union sued Metro. “That has created a focus on running more service rather than better service — without a lot more riders.”

“If we had overloads and super crowded conditions on all our buses, this might not be necessary,” Leahy added. “We do have some overloads and we need to take care of that and address it where it happens. But overall loads are not nearly as heavy as they were 15 or 20 years ago compared to now.”

Leahy said that he is not aiming to return passenger loads to what they were in the 1980s and 1990s – but would like them to be more comparable to other large metro areas. “I’m not proposing to go back to 70 percent capacities,” Leahy said. “We’ll still be below where we were in the 1990s,” Leahy said.

•On what riders will get out of the changes: “Operations will be working on the maintenance of our bus stock and of our bus stops and stations. We’re not cutting that. We will be putting more resources into real-time management of the bus system –we have improved our on-time performance but it’s still not good enough.”

“We have to become cleaner and more reliable,” Leahy added. “A timetable is a contract with passengers and if we do a better job of holding up our end of the deal, that’s big.”

•When asked his view of bus operations when taking the job as Metro CEO in 2009, Leahy was very frank. “A preoccupation with quantity and not quality. The justification for the service reductions is we’re wasting money; another outcome is this will help us solve our chronic operating deficit.”

“If we keep on the path that we’re on and keep deferring maintenance — because buses are constantly on the road — we’ll have a system in crisis,” Leahy said. “What we’re achieving here is a level of sustainability with the transit system.

•As to whether this will be the final bus service changes, Leahy said that he wasn’t sure. “But if we don’t do these things, the capital program” — i.e. the program to build more transit — “is not sustainable.”

Finally, Leahy also talked more about the idea of “sustainability” and what that means in an era in which global warming and rising fuel prices are likely and burning fuel to run mostly empty buses is not viewed as a public service. “We must prepare this place for a world that’s very different than it was the past 50 years,” Leahy said. “What we’re doing at Metro now is positioning ourselves to go forward into that world.”

Versión en español:

Metro anunció oficialmente audiencias públicas para los cambios propuestos al servicio de autobuses que entrarán en efecto en Junio del 2011. Aquí está una lista de los cambios propuestos y las audiencias, las cuales se iniciarán el 1 de Febrero.

Los cambios –los cuales incluyen recortes-, fueron solicitados por Art Leahy, Presidente de Metro, quien con dos años en el puesto ha presionado por un sistema de autobuses que enfatizarán en la calidad en vez de en la cantidad.

Leahy ha dicho que el actual sistema de autobuses ha creado una multitud de problemas para la agencia y sus usuarios. Entre ellos, un servicio excesivo en muchas líneas de autobuses que ha conducido a déficits en el presupuesto en forma regular. Retrasos en el mantenimiento ha conducido a la descompostura de autobuses y dañan la puntualidad de los autobuses; el apego a los horarios es muy pobre y la actual “lista” de ruta de autobuses es redundante y debería de integrarse mejor con el servicio de trenes que provee Metro o con el servicio de autobuses que prestan las 16 agencias municipales de transporte público en el condado de Los Angeles.

Después de finales de los 90, Metro incrementó su servicio de autobuses con más de un millón de horas. A pesar de que el número de usuarios de Metro se incremento, sin embargo, el número de usuarios de autobuses ha descendido o permanece estancado en las ultimas dos décadas. Mientras tanto, el número de pasajeros de Metro Rail y Metrolink y los servicios municipales de transporte público se han visto cuadruplicados.

¿Que tan llenos están los autobuses Metro hoy en día? En total, los autobuses Metro están trabajando a un promedio del 42 por ciento de su capacidad. Por supuesto eso no significa que todos los autobuses Metro están a menos de la mitad de su capacidad. Otra medida para evaluar el uso de los autobuses es llamada “proporción de pasajeros” (load ratio) –la proporción de pasajeros que viajan dentro de un autobús en relación a sus asientos durante la parte mas ocupadas de una ruta de autobús. Por ese método el promedio del factor de carga o de pasajeros está en un promedio de 1.2 (por ejemplo, 48 pasajeros en un autobús de 40 asientos). Muchas otras agencias grandes de transporte público están utilizando el factor de carga de 1.5 a 1.7.

Los cambios propuestos ayudan a optimizar los niveles de servicio de demanda y resultan en una reducción de servicios desperdiciados y/o desaprovechados, de acuerdo a funcionarios de Metro. En casi todos los casos donde las líneas son eliminadas, estás serán reemplazadas por otras líneas de autobuses de Metro o por servicios de transporte dentro de un cuatro de milla de la línea en existencia. Esta ronda de cambios sigue a otros cambios hechos en Junio y Diciembre del 2010, resultando en un 13 por ciento de todos los recortes del servicio total de los autobuses Metro. Esto, por supuestos, no es una cantidad cualquiera, pero esta dentro de los recortes a autobuses que se han hecho en los últimos dos años en otras agencias grandes de transporte público.

Los cambios están diseñados para cumplir con las recomendaciones hechas por un Comité Blue Ribbon convocado por Metro para mejorar el servicio de transporte público de la región. Las recomendaciones del comité (http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2010/07_July/20100722RBMItem29.pdf) fueron adoptadas por la Junta de Directores de Metro el año pasado e incluyen varias estrategias claves. Entre ellas enfatizar una mejor calidad en el servicio, reducir la duplicación del servicio, más coordinación con los operadores de transporte municipal y otros, y una mejor integración del servicio de trenes y autobuses.

La decisión de llevar a cabo los cambios propuestos al servicio será ultimadamente una decisión de la Junta de Directores de Metro, quienes decidirán el tema en su reunión mensual de Marzo.

Algunos antecedentes importantes: Metro administra la segunda operación de autobuses más grande del país con más de 387.5 millones anuales de pasajeros y sus autobuses recorren 1.46 mil millones de millas al año, de acuerdo a las estadísticas de la American Public Transportation Association (APTA) del 2008. La tarifa básica de Metro es 1.50 de dólar y es una de las mas bajas de muchas otras agencias de transporte y el pasaje para estudiantes, ancianos y minusválidos así como beneficiarios de Medicare permanece congelado al mismo nivel desde 2009 y será hasta mediados del 2013 que estos precios cambiarán debido a la Medida R aprobada por los electores del condado. Al momento, Metro subsidia alrededor del 71 por ciento del costo real de cada viaje en autobús, una cantidad muy alta en comparación con otras agencias grandes de transporte público. Es también importante reconocer que este servicio es incrementado con Metro Rail, Metrolink y los operadores de transporte publico municipal.

En muchos casos, el criterio para cambios al servicio ha sido eliminar partes de una ruta de autobuses que atrae a pocos usuarios, duplicación de otros servicios disponibles o puede ser una combinación con otras líneas para que los autobuses puedan dar servicio mas seguido en las nuevas rutas. Más detalles estarán disponibles durante el proceso de las audiencias acerca de las alternativas que los servicios de transporte público pueden ofrecer para reemplazar cualquier servicio de autobús que sea eliminado. Se harán cambios para mejorar la calidad del servicio asegurando que el sobrecupo y los horarios no realísticos sean corregidos.

Recientemente me reuní con el Presidente Ejecutivo de Metro, Art Leahy para discutir los cambios: aquí están los puntos principales que él indicó.

  • Sobre, ¿porque se llevan a cabo los recortes? “Tenemos un nivel alto de servicio artificial debido al Acuerdo Mutuo Federal”, indicó, refiriéndose a las mejoras ordenadas por un mediador aprobado por la corte a finales de los años 1990, después de que Bus Riders Union demando a Metro. “Eso ha creado un enfoque en tener mas servicio en vez de mejorar el servicio, sin muchísimos mas pasajeros”.

“Si tuviéramos pasajeros de más y autobuses con muchísimo sobrecupo en todos nuestros autobuses, esto podría no ser necesario”, agregó Leahy. “Tenemos sobrecupos y necesitamos resolver eso y hacerlo en donde esto sucede. Pero en general el número de pasajeros no es tan grande hoy en día como era hace 15 o 20 años atrás”.

Leahy dijo que no está encaminándose a regresar al número de pasajeros que había en los 1980’s y 1990, pero que le gustaría ser mas comparables a otras agencias grandes de transporte público metropolitanas. Estaríamos debajo de donde estábamos en los 1990’, Leahy indicó.

  • Sobre ¿que obtendrán los usuarios de estos cambios? “Operaciones estaría trabajando en el mantenimiento de nuestros autobuses, de nuestras paradas de autobuses y estaciones. No estamos recortando esto. Vamos a poner mas recursos en administrar realmente el sistema de autobuses –hemos mejorado nuestro rendimiento de puntualidad pero aun no es suficientemente bueno”.

“Estamos contaminando menos y somos mas confiables”, comentó Leahy. “Un programa de horario es un contrato con los pasajeros y si hacemos nuestra parte y un mejor trabajo, eso es algo grande”.

  • Cuando se le preguntó su opinión sobre las operaciones de autobuses cuando comenzó a trabajar como Presidente de Metro en el 2009, Leahy fue muy franco. “Una preocupación por la cantidad en vez de la calidad. La justificación para la reducción de servicio es que se esta desperdiciando dinero; otra respuesta era que esto ayudara a resolver nuestro déficit crónico de operaciones”.

“Si nos mantenemos en la senda en que estamos y seguimos dejando de lado el mantenimiento -ya que los autobuses están constantemente en servicio-, tendremos un sistema en crisis”, advirtió Leahy. “Lo que estamos logrando aquí es un nivel de sostenibilidad en el sistema de transporte público”.

*Al preguntarse si ¿estos será los cambios finales al servicio de autobuses? Leahy dijo no estar seguro. “Pero si no hacemos estas cosas, los programas de infraestructura de transporte; ejemplo el programa para construir mas transporte público “no es sostenible”.

Finalmente, Leahy también comentó acerca de la idea de “sostenibilidad y lo que significa en una era en la cual el calentamiento global y el aumento de los precios del combustible continuarán y el consumo de combustible para hacer funcionar autobuses que casi siempre van vacíos no es visto como un servicio público. “Debemos preparar este lugar para un mundo que es completamente diferente de lo que fue hace 50 años”. Leahy agregó que “lo que estamos haciendo en Metro ahora es ubicarnos nosotros mismos para avanzar en ese nuevo mundo”.

Categories: Policy & Funding

Tagged as: ,

33 replies ›

  1. “Better coordination” with other agencies’ lines is a goal of the committee. All well and good, but if FARES are not coordinated, you’re just making transit trips more expensive for riders. Not good.

    Also, why not remove bus stops instead of bus lines? This would save money, improve efficiency, and keep service. It is ridiculous that long-haul lines like the #2 Sunset stop every block!!

  2. @Victor C

    In order for your comments to be considered as part of the public record you must forward your comments to Metro using one of the following options:

    EMAIL: servicechanges@metro.net

    FAX: 213.922.6988

    or SNAIL MAIL to:

    Metro
    Attn: Service Changes
    1 Gateway Plaza 99-PL-4
    Los Angeles, CA 90012

    Make sure your voice is heard

  4. I am disappointed with the majority of these “service enhancements.” For some awkward reason the line 287 has been targeted for changes every time ever since line 491 was canceled. When the gold line opened back in 2003, line 487 was extended from Sierra Madre to El Monte Station, replacing a segment of line 491. Then line 170 was canceled & replaced by a new line: 287 & line 487 was shorten to Sierra Madre Villa Station. Afterward, shortly before the opening of the gold line east side extension, line 487 replaced the segment of line 287 from Sierra Madre Villa Station to El Monte Station. With the cancelation of a segment of line 30 to East LA College, line 287 was extended from The Shops at Montebello to Indiana Station. Last year line 31 was canceled & line 287 broke into 287A & 287B & in December 2010, line 287 was shorten at The Shops at Montebello. And now they want to extend line 287 over a segment of line 176?????? That’s ridiculous. Mission Station will no longer have a metro bus connection at the station. Passengers are not willing to conduct multiple transfers to get to South Pasadena. Instead line 287 should be modified & replaced with a extension of line 265.

    Line 26
    – Support, consider replacing the segment with an extension of line 175.
    Line 217
    – Disagree, passengers will be required to transfer to lines 180 or 181.
    Line 704
    -Disagree, Sunset & Alvarado is not even a transfer station.
    Line 757
    -Disagree, Although line 757 doesn’t meet 1 rapid criteria mark, it is one of metro’s most busiest routes.
    Line 794
    – Disagree, there needs to be more frequency for this line.
    Line 460
    – The one that I disagree the most. Line 460 has been & is still Metro’s most successful metro express line. Its the only line in the system that travels to the Orange County. Shortening the line at Norwalk Station to favor a transfer to the Silver line is ridiculous. Line 460 has the most frequent service in the metro express system. Its also the one that has the highest ridership for the express line. Passengers are certainly not going to take the infrequent silver line & then transfer to the green line. On weekends line 910 runs every 60 minutes on the Harbor Transitway, while line 460 runs every 25-30 mins. Part of the reason for the low ridership on the harbor transitway is due to poor signage. Many South La residents don’t know that the Silver Line runs on the 1-110. The staions have no Metro pylon signs. Every other LRT & BRT has these.

    Line 485
    – Disagree. Creates multiple transfers. Passengers will not be willingly to take the Silver Line since it costs $2.45. I’m sure line 258 will not have weekend service. There will be no bus service between Colorado & Huntington.

    Line 445
    – I support the change as long as line 545 runs with a local fare & a better frequency with evening service added. The resources of line 445 should go to the silver line portion of the harbor transit way to improve the frequency to a 30 min. frequency instead of the current 60 min.

    Line 450
    – I support the change only if a few of line 450x resources can be added to the silver line northbound in the early opening. Currently line 910 first northbound trip to El Monte leaves Artesia Transit Center at 5:00 A.m. & then runs every 20 mins until 6:00 a.m. Line 910 should have at least 1 earlier trip going northbound to El Monte with a frequency of 10 mins.

  5. I disagree with truncating Line 704. In fact, it should run to 2:00 a.m. When I get on a #4 at 11:30 p.m., it is standing room only.

    However, don’t just comment here. Be sure and get on the record by e-mailing your comment to:

    servicechanges@metro.net

  6. Ditto on the points about reduced service hurting a system. This is exactly the issue I have with Metrolink, its the same problem with the infrequency and early end times. There is no way ridership and revenue can go up significantly unless you have MORE SERVICE, meaning MORE PEOPLE SEE IT AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR SAID TRANSPORT and can rely on it THROUGHOUT the day!!! Same with the so-called “rapid” buses. Most stop running early or only run peak hours. In an area like Los Angeles, there ware way more people than just commuters who benefit from transit. Choice riders will not ride unless they can rely on the availability of the system. Its simple really. So make it work. Stop cutting service Metro and Metrolink, your just adding fuel to the fire.

  7. Why does Metro persist in charging the same fee for each line regardless of quality of service? Charge more for those lines that were built with hundreds or billions of dollars, have accomodating well lit and clean shelters, fast loading with off board payment or simply more frequent service. Have the poorer service lines at a fraction of the ticket price that the better service lines charge. Suddenly you would find that charging per service level performed would increase the volume of passengers on the lines that charge less.

    This is a simple lesson in economics that if you charge less for poorer service people will be willing to use it in much greater quantity than if you charge the same as the better service lines.

    You have to look no further than Bogota to see how this would work. Their Transmilenio line charges only at the high frequency lines. Which makes the feeder lines free in essence.

  8. @ Ja M – very well said!!
    Couldn’t agree more: Metro indeed has some serious connectivity / synchronization issues. It appears, the buses are scheduled just for the sake of following their own schedules, not for following some basic common sense. Very true: when another bus pulls-in, the connecting one should wait. I wish Metro would do a better job implementing their connections (as well as dozens of other ongoing issues which I mentioned earlier)

  9. until those who have to rely on public transportation are factored into the planning, the chaos and time wasted continues….the fawning over and pampering of wheelchaired passengers on metro buses is ridiculous. the time wasted and the 4-6 seats, plus priority loading is not fair to the majority of riders, plus you can bet you’re going to be late. How about – designated wheelchair buses that correlates to estimated handicapped riders? – Better schedule synchronization between connecting buses would be appreciated. I’ve seen buses pull off empty, as another bus pulls up with potential connecting passengers, …can’t they wait at least to see if anyone wants to connect? Also a empty bus rolling down the street with “not in service” is a waste of money and pollutant unless said bus is on route to a maintenance station. ps. – some bus drivers could use some “good/polite” customer service training.

  11. If you stop having the express 450, you will be lossing your business passengers. The only reason the riding on this line has gone down is the timelyness. We never know if they are coming and so if they are late, people panic and take other buses. But if they are on time, they would be full. Sometimes I see them sitting at the Park and ride and there will be two or three. The supervisors are useless sitting in there cars doing nothing about the buses leaving on time. Late in the day is the worse. If the Service was better you would get more riders.

  14. Commenting on this board isn’t going to do much. You need to make comments on the public record. Educate your fellow riders to tell their own stories (not just sign petitions which can be easily forged). Write your city councilmember and neighborhood councilmember so that they pass resolutions opposing the service cuts and/or suggesting other options. Speak up at City Council meetings (if you live in the smaller cities) so that your local City Council is aware of these cuts and how it will impact their constituents, and raise the attention of those who might take the bus occasionally but now won’t have the chance to do so. If you work along one of the routes that are going to be cut, talk to your employer so they can let MTA know of the importance of the route for their customers and employees.

  15. P.S. Folks, forgot to mention one more thing. The listed service cuts are only the tip of the iceberg. Because – if you’ve looked at the timetables for other bus lines – pretty much all of them have undergone quite distinctive service reductions, as well. Meaning – overall, service has been reduced (and WILL be reduced) citywide, not just the routes listed, making the overall L.A.’s transit usage a hassle, a nuisance, a major waste of time. I truly feel sorry for the folks who have no other options but taking buses…

    If only Metro would be just a little more sympathetic, and start thinking straight, with perhaps putting stronger efforts of finding alternate ways to save on costs… for instance – working with the City, State, and Federal government to receive better funding; creating Toll lanes so the revenue from Tolls would go directly towards Metro’s funding of public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Lots can be done to save (and further improve!) the bus service, but MTA keeps using its rubber stamp and cutting service continuously. Very disappointing.

  16. I am shocked… again.
    It appears, Metro simply does not get the basics of Economics 101. The more you reduce service (combined with higher prices), the more passengers you will lose, meaning – the less revenue you will receive (duh!). Ultimately your patrons will lose faith in Los Angeles’ public transportation, and they will be gone. Permanently

    With wrong management’s views, Metro keeps cutting, and cutting, and cutting service, until they see the ridership drop so much, the public transportation in L.A. will end as we know it. Very sad. Metro has obviously things backwards. They assume, the more service they reduce, the more revenue they will receive. Ha-ha! The opposite is true. With continuously cut service the fairbox recovery ratio will drop. Further and further.

    Personally, I used to take mass transit in L.A. frequently, but not anymore. I cannot waste my time on transfer after transfer after transfer, which involves 20-minute waiting for a bus.

    SPECIFICALLY: One of the biggest mistakes is cutting line 704 at the west end (at Sepulveda) and now – at the east end (at Alvarado & Sunset). Also, line 794 is a major artery, and – having personally traveled in Rapid 794 a number of times – I am speechless as to why Metro wants to cancel this Rapid bus, because it has been very-very popular, with standing room only at rush-hours. Again, Metro appears to have not done enough research since they’re canceling (and shortening) such popular lines.

    ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Line 780 is one of the busiest lines in LA County, and at one point it was (finally!) implemented on weekends. But only on a small segment. Metro (for some strange reason!) decides to launch the bus not where service was needed the most, but where weekend service was needed the least! – i.e. east of Hollywood/Vine. The result is – not enough ridership to support weekend service. BUT… If Metro would do the right thing from the beginning – i.e. launching the Weekend bus 780 service from Hollywood/Vine to West LA Transit center – the weekend 780 service would be much-much more popular, because – west of Hollywood/Vine the bus service is always very popular, especially the Fairfax district, with the Grove, and other points of destination. However… as usually, Metro does things backwards.

    Dear Metro, please remember: you will ultimately NOT balance your budget by constantly reducing service, you will rather see a significant drop in ridership, until Metro will go bankrupt from total loss of revenue.

    The only time I am able to use Metro’s system is by either taking the subway or the light rail. But unfortunately – Metro-Rail doesn’t serve most places in L.A., that’s where people try to rely on buses. But we cannot rely on those buses anymore because of your constant cuts and forced transfers. What a waste of time! And what a mistake Metro is making!..

    Last but not least. I wish my comments would be read, and seriously reviewed, by Metro. Likewise, I wish many other comments would reach Metro management’s desk, as well as the desk of Mr. Leahy. Will L.A. ever get a truly reliable public transportation system we can all be proud of?.. So far, the sad opposite appears to become more & more obvious.

  17. Very sad to hear about the proposed 704 cut. I have many times taken it from the Westside to Union Station, and really would miss it if it is shortened.

    Transferring to the subway or Line 2 could slow things down with the need to wait for a transfer.

  19. The cut that seems odd to me is ending the 704 Rapid eastbound at Sunset & Alvarado. I realize that the 2 is proposed for rerouting to Union Station, to cover the segment. However, anyone who wants to connect from Union Station to any destination along Santa Monica Blvd. is going to have to make an additional transfer. If the 704 continued going into Union Station, along with the 2, there were be savings by not running the 2 (or the 83 for that matter) all the way through Downtown.

  20. The Expo related changes are good. But don’t repeat the mistake with Gold line: don’t pull the trigger on cutting line 42 until the Expo line is actually running revenue service.

  21. By looking at Metro’s past few service changes, the trend is to leave only one (or two, if lucky) bus line on each of most corridors, forcing passengers to make multiple transfers to go from point A to point B. For example, if I need to go from El Monte to South Pasadena, currently I can simple take Line 176, but according to the proposed June 2011 service changes, I will need to take Line 287, then Line 78, then Line 258, then Line 260. If there is only one bus line on each major street, all it takes is one late bus, and the entire itinerary is messed up. And think about it, there seem to be more and more bus lines with 40minutes headways in the Metro system after every service change..

  23. Line 445 — agree with comment from Terry above. I also worry if the bus is going to appear and then worry if it is close to the schedule. I catch the bus downtown 7th/Flower, it is usually a mystery when it will appear.

  24. Both of the proposed changes to the 183 (cancelling it or terminating at Eagle Rock Plaza) mean that there will be NO Metro buses that go to the Glendale Metrolink/Amtrak/Greyhound station. Granted, the 183 route and (in)frequency probably didn’t encourage riders to use it to get to the station, but it seems that there needs to be at least ONE line that goes to the station (94, 181, 180 and 780 get close, but don’t go all the way into the station). The Glendale Beeline has at least 4 lines that go to the station, but they don’t take the Metro EZ Pass. Also, the Beeline stops running very early, so there will be no choice but to walk in the dark to Los Feliz/San Fernando if you arrive on a train after 6:30 in the evening.

  25. Fred, that worked. And while we’re at it, the trains need to say where they are going. The only one that does that is the gold line if operators let it speak which they don’t at most stations. The red, blue, green, and a lot of buses still do not tell patrons with disabilities where they are going. I was on a bus one day where the bus didn’t say anything, come to find out the next day the system was down. The drivers still do not call out stops either. These changes should be implemented too as part of the rules, but the web page did work for me. If there should be change, then these changes especially for the trains needs to be done especially if your trains single track. I wouldn’t know if I was going the right way until i got on the train. On a side note, one of the gold line stations tells you which train is coming. It was very helpful to me. No other train station or bus stop does that except for the orange line from North Hollywood to Warner Center. Where to write about these issues? The E-mail address on the HTML page you provided to me? Already wrote Customer Relations about this, but maybe in a service writing these types of issues should be addressed.

  26. As a disabled reader reading this blog, when the document opens, my screen reading technology does not allow me to read this document. I’d be interested to read what changes might be coming.

  27. I’m going to second Terry’s complaint about San Pedro service. I lived down there for a year or so and still harbor an abiding frustration with the frequency of the 550 (once every hour at peak times? Seriously??) and the absolute impossibility of taking any alternate lines to get north every day.

    I haven’t ridden from San Pedro since the Silver Line came into being, so maybe things have gotten better, but the schedule and routing made it really hard to be a transit rider when I was down there.

  29. REALLY UPSET THAT WE STOP THE 445 BUS TO SAN PEDRO AT 8 EVERY NIGHT. I DON’T GET OFF WORK TIL AFTER 9. THAT FORCES A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT TOOK THAT BUS TO CATCH THE SILVER LINE AND THEN WAIT FOR ANOTHER CONNECTION. THAT BUS WAS ALWAYS FULL TOO.

  30. The reason why I don’t take the bus, as much, is because it doesn’t run as frequent. Decreasing service only hurts that performance even more which makes the system LESS appealing. That means I ride less and you get LESS money!

    We need more bus service to make the system better.

    You raise rates and continue to cut service. Why oh why do they never raise rates to expand service?