35 replies ›

1. The Hollywood/Mid-Wilshire area as shown on the plan is one of the most dense areas of the region. Nearly every bus in that region should be within one transfer of the major Westside employment centers: Century City, Westwood Village, UCLA, and Santa Monica. It is woefully inadequate that the only bus from the east to service UCLA is 2-Sunset. There needs to be a bus similar to the old 21 that connects the UCLA campus (with perhaps a detour through Century City) to the westernmost existing Purple line station at Western/Wilshire (or to La Cienega when that extension opens).

   Basically every bus in Hollywood/Mid-Wilshire will need to intersect with (1) the 2-Sunset and 4-Santa Monica or (2) the 20-Wilshire and my 21-Wilshire/UCLA to reach the employment centers. So it’s OK if the other E-W buses don’t make it beyond La Cinega, as long as a transfer (and only one transfer) can be provided to get to these centers. Having all the buses terminate in West Hollywood won’t cut it if they only connect to 4-Santa Monica without also connecting to 2-Sunset. Would everyone riding buses on Melrose, Beverly, and 3rd be forced to make 2 additional transfers to get to Westwood Village and UCLA?

   The 30 bus needs to somehow be extended to meet with Wilshire somewhere, maybe ending at Wilshire/La Brea to reach Century City and UCLA.

   Some of the shorter bus segments can be connected together. Perhaps 10-Melrose and 220-Robertson can be connected as one bus line. Perhaps the Rossmore/Vine bus line can be connected to 8th street bus which ends at Wilshire/western.

   Also noticed no bus along the Cauhenga Pass. This is normally fine as there is the Red Line, but there needs to be a night express bus connecting Universal City to Hollywood for when the Red line doesn’t run.

   Loading...

2. Looks like we won’t be able to go to the beach from Lawndale any longer. Guess I’ll have to drive a car. FAIL

   Loading...

   • Hi downwinder;

     You should still be able to go to the beach, but I believe you will need to transfer to Beach Cities Transit.

     Steve Hymon
     Editor, The Source

     Loading...

3. No complaints here – said nobody, ever. I think the plan actually looks pretty good. You’re never going to make everyone happy but I think the NextGen isn’t too aggressive, cleans up bloat in the system, and makes some good improvements.

   -It’s a shame to see some of the 16/30/108/115 routes truncated from their old westside termini, but those ridership patterns have changed over time and really aren’t that useful anymore.
   -I think chopping off parts of the 210 (through Hollywood) and 17 (down Robertson) and creating separate lines for the lesser-used portions will increase efficiency and timeliness on the more heavily-used portions of the lines. This seemed to work on the 602 in the Palisades.
   -The Disneyland bus riders will fight to the death to save their line west of Norwalk, but having taken that bus fairly often I can see why the planners would want to get rid of it. Charging $1.75 for a two-and-a-half-hour bus ride (no driver has ever collected the zone surcharge) isn’t sustainable and the park-and-ride lot in Norwalk was never meant for people not taking trains. The point of the 460 is to get people to jobs at OC theme parks, not protect people from the Blue Line. They’ve tried to kill that one in the past though but it has always survived.
   -The 212/40 switch in the South Bay is a big improvement.
   -The streamlining of the bus stops will be a big hurdle. You’re going to have AARP, ACLU, ADA and CA disability lawsuits all over the place so that might be an issue when it comes to implementation.

   Let’s be honest though – this could have been a massacre. With ridership down 20% and 25+ routes over two hours or 20 miles long, we could have lost a lot more. Outside consultants would have hacked these routes into pieces and required three transfers to get where you are going. I’ve flown to Denver in less time than it takes to get to Long Beach on the 232. The 120 goes through five area codes. The 260 should have meal stops like Greyhound. But they’re convenient so I’m glad we will still have them.

   Loading...

   • T. Ryan. Just so you know. Someone agrees with your first paragraph.
     I hope that most of the Plan is adopted. No doubt, some tweaking will be justified.
     But there are not limitless resources and prudent design will point in a direction that can be described as progress.

     Loading...

4. Your whole proposal appears to get rid of all rapid routes which I disagree because they save time compared to local route. When I travel on a rapid route, I see those stops on non major streets have very very low usage which suggested that people would prefer walking to the major stops to catch the rapid bus instead. Even if you consolidate bus stops, it is unsure how much time do we save, or does it actually take longer to reach destinations. Also there is no replacement services to the area where sections of a bus route, or even the entire route will be eliminated under your proposal which gives an encourage for people living in those area to drive instead, okay then you will lose further in terms of the buses ridership. While some suggestions are acceptable, like 501, 460/160, many changes under the proposal creates uncertainty to the existing bus system and I don’t think it is convenience and time/ cost savings to use the Metro bus. I will just give up using the bus system and drive unless it is reachable by rapid metro rails or commuter trains.

   Loading...

5. It would be much simpler and make way more sense to bring back the 450 from San Pedro to Downtown. The 450 made limited stops on the 110 freeway and was a much faster ride than the 950. Not stop at Harbor Gateway??? Really??? It can terminate at 5th & Figueroa Street. When the 450 was morphed into the 910/950 riders from San Pedro saw a huge jump in their travel time. Come on Metro, how about using some common sense with these changes. Why are you making riders from San Pedro change buses??? Makes absolutely NO sense. I know this comment will fall on death ears as I believe Metro is set on these changes – with or without public comment.

   Loading...

6. The enormous multi-page (or multi-slide) NextGen Bus Plan is an equally enormous disappointment to many of us, even without going into the numerous specific bus-line changes, route-truncations, and complete route cancellations.

   The information on the page/slide for each specific bus line falls FAR SHORT of what is needed for the public to review and make an intelligent evaluation of such a crucial and extensive plan. Except for the provision of actual maps in this latest version, this plan is even less informative (and less accurate in some important details) than the microscopically printed detailed plan that was distributed at January’s Metro Board meeting.

   To begin with, take the maps–PLEASE. Among the numerous problems with these proposed/changed bus-line route maps:

   Some of the maps printed in this plan contradict the accompanying written narrative for the particular proposed bus line. The lack of labels needed to identify where some new routes would change streets, together with the decision to use a scale that is large enough to make exact routes clear often makes it very difficult to interpret exactly where direction changes are proposed for new or changed bus-routes, even for those of us who are extremely familiar with those areas and their existing routes.

   Also, some important details of proposed routes on one map are contradicted by the what is shown on another map for the exact-same proposed route. Worse, some of the street names shown are obviously wrong, based upon both the Thomas Guide and decades of both driving and transit-riding experience in L.A. County.

   Turning to the “frequency tables”: They are less than adequate in providing information needed by the transit-riding public.

   To begin with, this version of the plan actually is LESS INFORMATIVE about frequency than was the microscopically printed chart distributed at the January Metro Board Meeting.

   For example, why do these tables totally omit the important THREE-HOUR period of transit use that Metro misleadingly calls “Late Night” (which WAS INCLUDED for the Metro Board)? That transit period is very important because it actually covers the hours from 9 p.m. to midnight, when large numbers of Angelenos with typical day jobs will need to return home from having taken a “evening out” for entertainment–say, at Staples Center (not to mention new sports centers in Inglewood, etc.), the Music Center, the Pantages, the Hollywood Bowl or Ford Theater, the Getty, the Broad Stage, UCLA’s Royce Hall , CSUN’s Soria, museums, countless movie theaters, or just a restaurant. If Metro does not provide adequate, reliable transit for us to get home from an evening’s entertainment, many more of us will take our personal autos to work in the morning, then drive them (during evening peak hours) to our entertainment (and then afterward home to sleep).

   Remarkably, the bus-frequency table have omitted completely the important hour between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. (I thought that Metro considered that hour to be part of the evening peak period; regardless, it is one of the most important transit hours of the day.)

   Additionally, it is clear that Metro believes that today’s traffic conditions have removed most of the advantage from using a Rapid Line on a particular route in preference to a Local Line. HOWEVER, it is very misleading for the plan to separate (on distant pages/slides) the comparison of the frequencies of proposed NextGen lines with the frequencies of existing Local bus lines from the comparison of NextGen with existing Rapid (and Limited) bus lines. The result (whether intended or not by Metro) is to exaggerate (falsely) the proposed improvement in total frequency of buses proposed by NextGen on existing routes that currently are used by both Local and Rapid buses. Once again, the master chart given to Metro’s Board kept together the frequencies of existing Local and Rapid lines that use the mostly same route–e.g., Lines 4/704,

   This plan needs to be reprinted with more (NOT LESS) information.

   Loading...

7. Is there going to be a way to comment by Lines individually vs just giving comments on the overall proposal?

   The reason I ask is because while 10% of the changes are actually good and should be implemented ASAP, about 5-10% could use some minor changes IMO, the rest of the changes are straight up trash IMO. So ai much rather provide feedback based by line or at least by sector.

   For example, bus lines in the Westside/Central and SGV sectors definitely affect me, while I don’t think I should comment on certain routes like 102, 110, 55, etc as I do not use those routes at all.

   What we don’t need is more bus service, what we need is better infrastructure (I.E. Bus Only Lanes), you can have a bus come every 6 min, but it’s pointless as traffic will just keep them bunching up.

   A bus coming every 15 minutes on a Bus Only Lane will be WAY more reliable than a bus coming every 6 min on mixed lanes, FACT!

   Loading...

8. I wish that overall service hours were being increased instead of just re-allocated to avoid the making some groups of riders the “losers” in focusing on more popular routes. Adjusting routing, combining stops, and reducing local/rapid redundancy are all well and good, but there is no getting around the fact that some riders will lose direct connections and see reduced frequencies on their local lines.

   Take Line 81–my local line–for example. The line-by-line overview states 10 minute frequencies all day across the entire line. Hooray! However, clicking into the interactive map reveals that service north of York is reduced to 20 minute headways all day. This is a drastic cut from the current 8-12 minutes peak service and 15 minutes weekday services. While the line may not be the most well-ridden north of York, those mid-day frequencies were already dismal and its a shame to make it even worse. While timing a morning commute to a bus that comes every 20 minutes is doable if you are committed to taking transit and connecting with Metro Rail, for those intra-neighborhood mid-day and evening trips (most local trips ate under 3 miles from home), the car will remain the fastest way to travel within my neighborhood. 🙁

   I’m surprise that Metro didn’t look at making more neighborhood specific routes that would encourage small trips and connect bwith Metro Rail for riders looking to get to/from downtown instead of continuing with long regional lines.

   Loading...

9. I Have the Copy of the Proposed Next Gen Changes from the SFV February 5th & it’s was Good, Bad & Worst.

   The Worst was with the Proposal with Line 102, in that case the Service would would End at Crenshaw & King & Would Run All the Way to the City of Maywood to Slauson & Atlantic, Leaving No Service on Stocker, Overhill, Slauson, La Timers, Sepulveda, All the way to LAX City Bus Center.

   Leaving Riders along the Affected Route to Lose Service & that Portion of the Current 102 from City Bus Center to USC has Ridership, compared to Service East of the 110 Freeway.

   I’ll be Damned if Service W/O Crenshaw is Eliminated on the 102.

   As for the 212…

   It’s Proposed to Be Extended to South Bay Galleria, Replacing the 40 S/O Manchester in Inglewood & Add Owl Service & to Add Insult to Injury for Bus Riders in the Unincorporated L.A. County Section of Windsor Hills on Overhill Dr. the Proposal is to Reroute Busses on La Brea between Stocker & Slauson, Eliminating Service on Overhill Dr.

   The Reason Why the Busses were Rerouted on Overhill Dr. Were for Safety Issues as Proposed by the RTD in their 1980’s Sector Improvement Plan back in 1979 to Move the Old 871 & Proposed 212 to Overhill Dr. & these were the Reasons Why?

   1. La Brea Ave. Between Stocker St. & Slauson Av. Is kind of Steep for Busses to Operate on + in the Past that Section is Somewhat of a Speedway & you’ve had Many Accident on that Section of La Brea, some Fatal & Cars & Trucks going off La Brea Crashing Down to the Oil Fields, Overhill Dr. Is a Shallow Hill & Busses do not have to Struggle to Climb Up or Down La Brea that is More Steeper

   2. The S/B Stop at La Brea & Northridge is Unsafe, No Crosswalks or Signals, Nor is the Bus Stop Pad on the Westside of La Brea at Northridge is Not ADA Compliant & The N/B Stop Across the Street is Barely Compliant & you have No Sidewalks on the W/S of La Brea at that Location.

   3.You also can’t put a Bus Stop at La Brea & Stocker N/B, the Last Time a Stop was Placed there was when the 212 Started Operation on June 15th 1980 on the Island Portion at Stocker for Nearly 2 Months Before the Line was Moved to Overhill Dr.

   You can’t even put a N/B Stop on the Northside of Stocker St. At La Brea where Norman Houston Park is Located.

   4. Also the Overhill/Northridge Stop Around the Corner from where I Live is Used a Lot, you also have the Windsor Hills Magnet Elementary Around the Corner from the Stop, you have Parents & Student who Use the North & South Bound Stops, as well as Neighborhood People & Other Students from Other Schools who Use that Stop at Overhill & Northridge, as well as the Stop at Slauson & Overhill, which is also a Relief Point Stop for Operators from Division 5 Changing Operators.

   When Line 212 was 1st Started on June 15th 1980, Along with Then Line 871 (Now 102), the Busses Stayed on That Section of La Brea, until Then RTD & the L.A. County Public Works Dealt with Improving the Bus Stop at Overhill & Northridge & with the Okay with Stops & Zones & Busses Moved to Overhill Drive on August 10th 1980 & Been there Since.

   Need I have to Say More!

   I’ll be Damned if Metro Removes Busses Off Overhill Dr & Moves back to La Brea after 40 Years, which is Unsafe for Passengers.

   I don’t know who Masterminded this Proposal, but this is Unacceptable!

   Stay Tuned for more Complaints from the Proposed Next Gen Proposals.

   Loading...

   • They keep should keep Line 102 service to LAX City Bus Center but service to Crenshaw it doesn’t even make any sense

     It would be to extend Line 102 from LAX City Bus Center to Maywood at Slauson and Atlantic

     That’s a great idea to extend Line 102 to Maywood at Slauson and Atlantic

     Another thing on La Cienega Blvd from Jefferson Blvd to Centinela Ave in Culver City and Inglewood since you guys are going to discontinued Line 217 to Culver City Howard Hughes Center due to the extension of Line 180 from Pasadena to La Cienega/Jefferson Expo Line Station you guys need to extend Line 215 from La Cienega/Jefferson Expo Line Station to South Bay Galleria because La Cienega Blvd in Culver City and Inglewood needs to run a bus it’s a very busy area you guys need to work on that

     Loading...

     • In my view, it seems that having 180 go from Pasadena all the way to La Cienega/Jefferson is too long. And it also has the effect of making the N/S line down Fairfax too short.

       It would be better to extend 180 from Hollywood Blvd down La Brea to Santa Monica and terminating at Santa Monica/San Vicente in West Hollywood. This is much shorter and will provide a link to buses that continue further west. This also has the benefit of providing a direct link for West Hollywood’s SM Blvd to the Hollywood/Highland station.

       The 217 can more or less be back to a full length N/S route. From Hollywood/Vine down Hollywood to Fairfax and over Baldwin Hills along La Cienega. Instead of heading to Culver City, it would be far better if this route can be directed to service LAX, maybe by taking over 102’s routing along La Tijera.

       Loading...

       • Line 180 is extending from Pasadena to La Cienega/Jefferson Expo Line Station due to passenger demand after they discontinued former Line 217 on Hollywood Blvd to Vermont/Sunset Red Line Station since Line 180 has a high ridership Line 180 will become Colorado Blvd, Broadway, Los Feliz Blvd, Hollywood Blvd and Fairfax Ave

         Line 180 doesn’t need to extend to West Hollywood at San Vicente and Santa Monica Blvd it will not make any sense at all it will fail

         That’s why Line 180, 181, 780 and 217 are going to combined and renumbered as Line 180

         There is that answer your question

         Loading...

10. I encourage everyone to familiarize yourselves with this information. If it is at all possible, go to a meeting. There are a lot of them and hopefully you are near one that has a convenient time for you. If you do go they have these maps printed out in a book that is worth getting and looking at. This book is much better than looking at a screen. You will be more productive with the book.
    I am overall very impressed that this plan is very data driven. Much better than I would have and could have imagined.
    Hopefully it will be almost totally accepted. A death by a thousand cuts will quickly vitiate this plan and its usefulness.

    Loading...

    • I did, studied it a lot. Looked at routes that could definitely benefit from this change, and most do not. It also doesn’t really work for me personally. Thing is, I already have the “luxury” of only waiting 6-12 min for a bus throughout the day.

      The problem, well, while it’s only 4.5 miles from my home to my job (door to door) and yet it still takes me 50 MIN reverse peak and off-peak hours to get to work. Yes, 50 min, to travel 4.5 miles, even though I’m never waiting more than an average of 9 min for a bus even with transfer.

      Yo, let’s be honest, as much as frequent bus service is wanted and appreciated, if the 720 before 2015 taught us one thing is, no matter how many buses is thrown on a corridor, if the infrastructure isn’t there to support such a frequency, then all Metro will be doing is adding to traffic, not solving it. The reason the 720 is more reliable now is because of the bus only lanes.

      I remember when the 720 pre Expo Line and pre Bus Only Lanes had 2-6 min frequency during rush hour, yet I remember having to waiting for 15-30 min for 6 buses to suddenly 6 show up because they would be stuck in traffic. Consolidating stops isn’t going to help anyone when the stop can’t even move out of traffic. What it will do is add to the growing list of people who already do not like this.

      So please, I kindly ask, in your opinion, how would this change help everyone, at the expensive of losing rapid service and bus bunching?

      Loading...

11. Getting rid of the 950 is a mistake. That’s the only direct route out of San Pedro. Asking people to take alternates or transfer at Gateway simply isn’t going to fly. The trips are too long and if I have to transfer I simply will not use that option.

    Loading...

12. Looks like a lot of Metro Rapid and limited lines are disappearing.

    Loading...

    • Hi James;

      Many of the Rapid lines are being combined with Local Lines along with bus stop thinning in some locations. We think overall riders will enjoy more frequent service and will get to their destinations more quickly.

      Steve Hymon
      Editor, The Source

      Loading...

      • What I Saw was the 720 & 754 would be reduced to Peak Hour Only Lines.

        Loading...

        • Yeah.

          See here is the thing, Once the Purple Line and Vermont Subway Line are completely built and in operation, I can understand the 720 and 754 being peak hour lines, but as of between now and when the subways are in operation, these need to 7 day, all day and even late night routes.

          Metro went from causing a fracture on the system to being on the verge of just completely breaking the actual bone.

          Loading...

      • “We think overall riders will enjoy more frequent service and will get to their destinations more quickly.“

        Honest question: How is it that adding more stops will get from Vermont to Bundy faster with this proposal? As of now the 720 makes less stops than the hybrid route, so how would a proposed line that’s makes more stops than the 720 get me there faster? Am I missing something?

        Loading...

      • Perhaps this maybe wasn’t reached so I’ll ask again, may I ask how a “hybrid” bus line, resulting in more bus stops than the Metro Rapid, result in faster and more convenient as it is will still be slower overall ride?

        Loading...

        • Hi Dave —

          It’s because of frequency. The idea is that a bus that arrives more regularly and at more frequent intervals will, on average deliver faster trip times. They key word is average. If you always wait only a minute or two for a rapid bus, yes that may be a faster trip. What we’re seeking to do is over the course of a day reduce the wait times for the bus as much as possible. We feel like that passes on more of a regular benefit. Hope that makes sense.

          Steve Hymon
          Editor, The Source

          Loading...

13. I have a rider of bus route 460 Disneyland to DTLA/DTLA to Disneyland for more than 15 years. I do not like the plan to cut the route to the Norwalk station. Have you ever have to transfer buses/trains when it is raining or it is 100+* degrees? It is so convenient and time saving to catch one bus from home to work without having to transfer. I highly request/beg not to change the route. I would go back to driving if the route is change. As a female, I do not want to deal with transferring, people pushing you to get on or off and/or grabbing you when you have to go into or out of the train. I rather pay more than deal with all of that. I wonder if the people who are planning this change have experienced the transferring from buses to trains and vice versa during the raining season and the hottest part of the summer and dealing with the inconveniences mentioned above. If they have not, they should not be planning those changes until they personally experienced those traumatic inconveniences. Keep the 460 route as it is, please. Better yet, add the extra long buses, it will be even better.

    thank you,

    A loyal bus rider

    Loading...

    • Hi Lilian, I am also a fellow 460 rider and I completely agree with you! I travel between Long Beach and LA and I must say that the 460 is one of the fastest way to connect to line 577 at Norwalk station in order to get to Long Beach. If they were implement line 160, I believe Metro would also lose me as a rider. As a person who has tried the alternatives (that being connecting from the A line-Blue, to the C Line,Green then to line 577; the J line to the C line, then 577; or A line then to a Long Beach Transit bus), I have found that line 460 is the most consistent and fastest way to get to my destination. I have used the current trip planner, as well as the Next Gen trip planner to compare, and have found that my roundtrip would overall increase from my current 195 minutes with line 460, to 234 minutes with the alternatives. I really hope Metro re-considers keeping the current 460-and perhaps even increase service during rush hour as it gets pretty packed. To be frank, there really aren’t good alternatives for those of who take line 460 as connecting to rail lines not only takes longer, but usually feels more dangerous (even with increased security). I have already commented on the next gen website and will attempt to attend one of the Next Gen workshops in order to voice my concerns (if my busy schedules allows for it). However, I hope Metro does take into consideration our concerns through comments such as these as well.

      Sorry for the rant,

      Another loyal transit rider

      Loading...

      • When the Owl Service was Proposed for Several Lines, Metro Service Development Staff didn’t list where the Proposed Owl Service would Run At, Proposed Lines Such as…

        Line 2/200, Line 81, Line 94, Line 108, Line 117, Line 125, Line 152, Line 166, Line 210, Line 212, Line 224, Line 240, Line 260, Line 761

        A Little More Communication would Help to know What’s What?

        Loading...

        • Hi Wayne —

          Go to this link, https://arellano.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=955582cec83e4677ad060e993acf61cc, and in the layer list at left click on Existing Owl to see the current owl network. Then uncheck that and click on NextGen Owl to see the proposed owl network.

          Steve Hymon
          Editor, The Source

          Loading...

14. What is a bus study gen?

    Loading...

    • Hi Roy,

      The name of bus restructuring effort is the NextGen Bus Study.

      Steve Hymon
      Editor, The Source

      Loading...

15. When will the new system happen? I’ve already booked a trip to see an event at the new Inglewood stadium this summer and am staying in Playa del Rey, but it appears that all bus service to the area (115) will be eliminated. I’ll need to change plans if that is the case.

    Loading...

    • Hi Paul;

      If the plan is adopted by the Metro Board this September, it would be implemented in three phases beginning Dec. 2020, then June 2021 and Dec. 2021.

      Steve Hymon
      Editor, The Source

      Loading...

16. This is a really nice visualization tool. Unfortunately, the Reach map isn’t working right now. The backend calls are failing with a 500 error resulting in it saying there are no bus stops anywhere (e.g. https://reachmap.metro.net/ReachMapWeb2018/home/ReachMap?latitude=34.05074366184985&longitude=-118.24512004852296&day=Monday&time=12%3A00&duration=60&scenario=Current).

    Loading...

    • Hi there;

      Thanks for the heads up–I let my colleagues know it’s not working.

      Steve Hymon
      Editor, The Source

      Loading...

    • I’m told that it doesn’t work in Internet Explorer. Please try another browser and let me know if it works! Tx!

      Steve Hymon
      Editor, The Source

      Loading...