Here is the news release from Metro with all the details:
Starting Sunday, June 29, Metro will implement some minor bus service changes to improve the connectivity and usability of the bus system. For complete details, please see the revised timetables on metro.net or on buses during June. The following are the changes to be implemented.
28 Downtown LA – Century City via West Olympic Blvd.
Combined with Line 84 (Eagle Rock Plaza to Downtown LA via Eagle Rock Blvd.) in Downtown LA via Hill and Spring Streets providing a through line from Eagle Rock Plaza to Century City. Line 84 renumbered Line 28.
60/760 Downtown LA – Long Beach/Artesia Station via Long Beach Blvd.
Minor re-route northbound in Downtown LA via 7th St, Hope St, Wilshire Blvd. to Figueroa St. and regular route to Sunset Blvd.
68 Downtown LA – Montebello via Cesar E. Chavez &1st St.
Route extended in Downtown LA south to 6th St. via Spring and Main Streets.
84 Downtown LA – Eagle Rock via Eagle Rock Blvd.
Combined with Line 28 in Downtown LA via Hill and Spring Streets providing a through line from Eagle Rock Plaza to Century City. Line 84 renumbered Line 28.
169 West Hills – Sunland via Saticoy St. & Sunland Blvd.
Route now ends at Burbank Airport. Service to Sunland Blvd. provided via extended Line 222. Combined with Line 645 in West Hills providing a through line from Burbank Airport to Warner Center. Line 645 renumbered Line 169.
222 Sun Valley – Hollywood via Hollywood Way – Cahuenga Blvd.
Extend northern terminus to Sunland Blvd. via route of Line 169 providing a through line from Hollywood to Sunland with service to Burbank Airport.
645 West Hills – Warner Center via Valley Circle — Mulholland Dr.
Combined with Line 169 in West Hills providing a through line from Burbank Airport to Warner Center. Line 645 renumbered Line 169.
In addition, minor frequency adjustments/changes have been made to other bus lines not listed above. Please check for revised timetables on metro.net, or on board buses.
Metro is a multimodal transportation agency that is really three companies in one: a major operator that transports about 1.5 million boarding passengers on an average weekday on a fleet of 2,000 clean air buses and six rail lines, a major construction agency that oversees many bus, rail, highway and other mobility related building projects, and it is the lead transportation planning and programming agency for Los Angeles County. Overseeing one of the largest public works programs in America, Metro is, literally, changing the urban landscape of the Los Angeles region. Dozens of transit, highway and other mobility projects largely funded by Measure R are under construction or in the planning stages. These include five new rail lines, the I-5 widening and other major projects.
Stay informed by following Metro on The Source and El Pasajero at metro.net, facebook.com/losangelesmetro, twitter.com/metrolosangeles and twitter.com/metroLAalerts and instagram.com/metrolosangeles.
# # #
Categories: Policy & Funding, Service Alerts, Transit Service
On another note, I noticed a sign mentioning that, along with Lines 60 and 760, Line 51 will also be removed from from at least the westbound stop at 7th & Hill. However, Line 51 is not mentioned in your article. Can you add it? Thanks!
@Steve: Thanks for checking. I’m pretty positive that there was some sort of campaign to overhaul the bus stop signage a few years ago. It’s hard to find the photos of the pilot signs online, but I think I found one a third of the way down this webpage (though this example seems to be more “busy” than I remember; maybe that’s why it never rolled out?): http://www.rebrand.com/2008-best-metro-los-angeles . These signs have right-justified line numbers housed in rounded rectangle backgrounds. I don’t see an example of a Rapid line here, but I think they might have featured red backgrounds with white line numbering. I knew I wasn’t crazy (well, not for that reason anyway)!
The 28/84 merger actually restores what was the case several years ago, beofre the 68 and 84 were merged in one line. Before, lines 27, 28, 328, 83, 84, and 85 were all lumped together into one route, with horrid reliability but high levels of convenience. Due to complaints from the senior community who live downtown and shop in Koreatown, the 28 and 84 connect again. http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2014/06_june/20140611othersectorwesitem2.pdf The 169 and 645 combination is similar, to eliminate layover time at West Hills Medical Center.
@atheisticallyyours, For the record, I ride Metro buses in Central LA 20-25 times a week and am a huge supporter of Bus Rapid Transit and bus-only rush hour lanes.
I fail to see it as a simple analysis, seeing as we don’t have route maps or timetables yet. Again, these lines were not “eliminated entirely”. In actuality they had similar end points and were merely combined into one route, most likely with no stops removed. Is the Blue Line going to be “eliminated entirely” when the regional connector is built?
It appears that the 169/645 combination further links a transit hub, future TOD site, medical center, and a major commuter bus route. Seems pretty harmless to me.
As for the 28/84 combination you apparently know nothing about… As someone who lives on Olympic blvd in Westlake, I am very pleased with this. I can now take a single bus pretty much anywhere I need to go in downtown and even visit family in Eagle Rock without having to transfer to the Red Line, then Gold Line, then Bus Line again.
Bus & Rail complement one another ~ Citation: Every functioning city in the world.
Concerning http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2014/06_june/20140619ssopitem43handout.pdf ,
there are more questions than answers.
Can Metro postpose the retirement of the old buses in order to make additional buses available to start the 588 & 788 lines on 06/29? It does not make sense to start these lines in September and readjust them in December. You don’t have enough time to gather the data to make a meaningful adjustment in December.
Metro needs to be more responsive to the Service Sector Councils. Waiting the new buses to show up then add the new routes can be interpreted that Metro is making bureaucratic decisions.
You are using LOGIC, Ivan! Haven’t you figured out that Metro DOES NOT USE LOGIC when it comes to bus line improvements? If it did, the Line 588/788 (or whatever number they come up with!) would be BEING implemented, ALONG WITH the “Valley U” (741-761) connection! Remember-if bus riders want it, and it MAKES SENSE, it DOES NOT, and WILL NOT, GET DONE!
atheisticallyyours, what are you complaining about? All the changes you mentioned are either INCREASING service/coverage area or keeping the service almost exactly the same with a minor re-route (Line 60/760). How in the world are any of these “anti-bus” or reducing service??? You really need to read what the changes actually are before you start whining about every little change and ranting that “Metro hates bus riders”.
Its a simple analysis: 1.) TWO BUS LINES (Lines 84, and 645) are being ELIMINATED ENTIRELY (yes the “areas” they ran in may be covered, but is the FREQUENCY the same, or greater?, and 2.) the plans to ADD and IMPROVE SERVICE in the San Fernando Valley (i.e. the “Valley U” proposal, and “Line 588” proposal) were NOT ADDED (though there was clear support for them at the SFV Service Council meeting in February!). Clearly when it comes to the actual BUS RIDERS, what they need/desire does NOT get implemented (after all, was it any of THEIR ideas to ELIMINATE two bus lines, and add those eliminated lines coverage areas to existing bus lines?). Had BUS RIDER comments been considered, the “Valley U”, and Line 588, would be being implemented on June 29! That is NOT happening, thus proving, the MTA is, and REMAINS, ANTI-BUS RIDER!
I fail to see how the changes to those lines are “anti-bus rider”? I don’t know enough about the 60/760 detour to comment on it, but the changes to the 28/84 and the 68 are both definite improvements to bus service.
I would also like to know why these changes were not included in the previous list of proposed changes, but I would hardly refer to them as “anti-bus rider”.
What happened to the 734/741/761 San Fernando Valley changes that were approved in May?
Apparently, the MTA (in its continuing quest to be the most ANTI-BUS RIDER “transportation agency” in the USA!), decided to “postpone the implementation of those route changes to December (if then!), since probably TOO MANY SFV bus riders ACTUALLY WANTED IT TO BE IMPLEMENTED (and besides there are taxpayer dollars that must be WASTED on “studying” the problem!).
It looks like those changes are being looked at for later in the year. Please see this handout on the Board of Directors agenda about prospective SFV-Westwood express bus: http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2014/06_june/20140619ssopitem43handout.pdf
Editor, The Source
The answer to your question — thanks for your patience! From Metro bus officials:
The changes to Lines 734/741/761 were approved by the SFV Service Council. This creates the “Valley U” with Line 761 operating on Van Nuys, Ventura, and Reseda. Rapid Line 734 (Sepulveda Bl.) would be extended south from its current terminal at Ventura Bl., to Westwood along Sepulveda Bl. replacing the service now provided by Line 761.
The implementation of this service was pushed back to December of this year to allow for the possible implementation of the proposed Line 788, formerly known as line 588.
Line 788 would provide peak period service along Van Nuys Bl., from Plummer to Oxnard, (serving the Orange Line) to Sepulveda. From there it would get on the 405 and take the HOV lanes to Westwood. This would allow persons who are currently taking the 761 to/from Westwood to transition to Line 788 without a transfer.
The reason for the delay in the approved changes is that Metro does not have enough spare buses to initiate Line 788 until September at the earliest.
Editor, The Source
The “Service Changes” for the 28/84, 60/760 & 68 were NOT on the “Proposed” Service Changes advertised in February! Where did THEY come from? I guess this is part of the MTA’s anti-bus rider strategy of not including ALL “proposed” service changes in the public comments period? Also, the Line 588 proposal, and 741-761 “merger” have disappeared! WHY? Too many SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS, so it could not be implemented?
What happen to the Proposal “Valley U” and making the 577X to stop at Rio Hondo College Permanently?
1. What is the anticipated turnaround for bus stop signage updates for these changes?; and
2. Whatever happened to the proposed overhaul of bus stop signage? I believe the signage updates were first unveiled a few years back around when Metro’s current branding was introduced. I can’t find any pictures online, but I believe the signage used contrasting backgrounds of different colors to call out Local vs Rapid lines (as opposed to the current practice of different-colored thin stripes. Was this signage initiative cancelled?
I don’t know. I’ll ask around and try to find out.
Editor, The Source
I checked and doesn’t sound like there’s any signage overhaul using contrasting backgrounds that’s imminent. As for getting the signs updated, that’s an ongoing process.
Editor, The Source