Route changes on select lines to begin Sunday, July 18

Over the past several years, we listened to your ideas about how to improve our bus network and the way it operates. We do not take this work lightly. It’s been a heavy lift to reboot an entire system and we are still working to get it right.

We implemented Phase 2 of the NextGen Bus Plan service changes on June 27 to offer faster, more frequent and more reliable service on many of our routes. It was the biggest change our bus system has seen in decades.

After reviewing the feedback received from our customers over the past couple of weeks, we’ll be making some adjustments on select routes to improve connectivity to the new network in the San Fernando Valley and Silver Lake.

Thanks to your feedback, the lines below will see changes beginning Sunday, July 18:

Line 152: As of Sunday, July 11, the new route 152 westbound detour in Canoga Park/West Hills travels via Roscoe Boulevard left onto Topanga Canyon Boulevard, right at Sherman Way, right at Fallbrook Avenue and right at Roscoe Boulevard back to the terminus at Roscoe Boulevard where the eastbound Line 152 trip departs from. This change will increase service area and provide connectivity with Line 162 on Sherman Way and Fallbrook Avenue.

Click for larger version.

Line 222: Starting Sunday, July 18, a new shuttle route 622 in Burbank and Sun Valley will link Line 222 at Hollywood Burbank Airport with Sun Valley and Lines 90, 92, 152, 169, 224, 230 and 294 via Hollywood Way, Glenoaks Boulevard, Tuxford Street and Roscoe Boulevard to Laurel Canyon Boulevard. This shuttle will operate weekdays and weekends and helps provide links previously available on Lines 152 and 222.

Click for larger version.

Line 236: An additional branch of Line 236, Line 235, will be added on weekdays starting Monday, July 19 in Granada Hills, San Fernando and Sylmar to service the previous route north of Rinaldi Street along Balboa Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, and Glenoaks Boulevard to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station. On weekdays, every second existing Line 236 trip will be modified to operate via the new Line 235 alignment, with 30-minute weekday service maintained on Balboa Boulevard south of Rinaldi Street to Ventura Boulevard with the combination of Lines 235 and 236; hourly service will operate north of Rinaldi Street on both Lines 235 and 236. On weekends, Line 236 will continue to operate hourly.

Click for larger version.

Line 182: While Line 182 replaced former Line 201 on June 27 to provide more frequent service, the new route doesn’t fully serve areas on Silver Lake Boulevard in Silver Lake. Starting Sunday, July 18, the Silver Lake Boulevard area will be served by Metro Micro, our on-demand ride-hail service, as part of the zone serving Glendale/Eagle Rock/Highland Park. Hours of operation are 5:30 a.m. – 9:30 p.m., seven days a week. Learn more about how to book a ride at metro.net/micro.

You can also check for changes to your bus line with our online tool at metro.net/mybus. Or use Transit app, Metro’s official smartphone app, to see the latest routes and schedules.

And for those who have questions regarding their lines or service areas, please keep in mind we have another round of service changes happening in September and December as we implement the final phase of the NextGen Bus Plan and restore bus service to pre-pandemic levels.

We appreciate your feedback and always want to hear from you! Email CustomerRelations@metro.net or message us on Twitter @metrolosangeles.

Reminder: masks are still required when riding public transit. Please be sure to wear a mask on Metro. Metro has installed mask dispensers on numerous buses, trains and at stations to make it easier for riders who may have forgotten or misplaced their masks.

34 replies

  1. “Silver Lake Boulevard in Silver Lake. Starting Sunday, July 18, the Silver Lake Boulevard area will be served by Metro Micro, our on-demand ride-hail service, as part of the zone serving Glendale/Eagle Rock/Highland Park. Hours of operation are 5:30 a.m. – 9:30 p.m., seven days a week. Learn more about how to book a ride at metro.net/micro.”

    – Does this include a potential pickup/drop off at or near Sunset/Silver Lake Blvd if Metro Micro is essentially covering the 201 route? Sorry but the map uploaded does not actually state that it covers the Silver Lake Blvd area at all.

    • Hi Dave,

      We’re working on getting the map updated ASAP to show the exact zone area.

      Thank you,

      Anna Chen
      Writer, The Source

  2. I assume METRO MICRO utilizes vans. How are you going to accommodate the students from King Middle School and Marshall High School who live along the lake previously accommodated by school trippers?

    • King Middle School has trippers from Line 2 that serve the school. I would imagine that Line 182 will have trippers for Marshall High School just the former Line 175 did.

  3. Some of these north and west San Fernando Valley areas really need to be taken care of by Metro Micro, which has not yet started in the N/W SFV. According to NextGen data few people on north Balboa or in West Hills were taking transit anyway and a once an hour bus, or a bus making a long loop with a layover in the middle, is not going to gather more than a few riders a day. I support “collapsing the network” with Metro Micro filling the gaps, not reextending bus service to places where due to street design, lack of commercial destinations, or availability of cars few were riding to.

    • I rode the 236 on North Balboa on an early weekend morning going out of the Valley, when buses were coming once an hour. There were more than a handful of people depending on that bus, and like me, I’m pretty certain they didn’t have cars regardless of the number of cars in the neighborhood it passed through. I’m also pretty certain they didn’t care about “street design” either.

      Just like 218, 344, 534, 602 and 79, the people living along the route are not necessarily the same as those riding the bus. And those riders are our essential workers traveling very long distances to contribute to Southern California’s economy.

      This is a very wealthy state and region. We never act like a miser when it comes to the freeway system, one that excludes people without cars and who can’t drive, and yet we all of a sudden we become hyper efficient when it comes to buses where everything has to be high ridership or it gets cut.

      Let’s start acting like the world class city we aspire to be and stop being penny wise and pound foolish. I’m proud that Metro is a system that serves the least fortunate among us. Thank you Metro for restoring service.

  4. The nextgen plan says peak period is 3pm-7pm and evening is 7pm-12am. However, on the schedule, peak period frequency ends at 5pm and evening frequencies switch to owl frequencies as early as 9pm. Will this be improved in the September and December service restorations, to align with what was promised in the nextgen plan?

    • Hi John,

      Could you let us know which lines you’re referring to? I’ll check with our scheduling team to see if there is additional info.

      Thank you,

      Anna Chen
      Writer, The Source

      • Hi Anna, I noticed this on the line 70 schedule. Peak and midday frequency is 7.5 minutes, evening is 10-30 minutes, and owl is 1 hour, so the difference is noticeable.

        • Hi John,

          Thanks for the info! While there are additional adjustments in the works for the September & December changes, we are also trying to manage loads on our buses due to COVID-19. Although cases have been low, they are currently trending up again, and our priority is to add daytime trips where possible so riders can maintain social distancing as much as possible.

          Thank you,

          Anna Chen
          Writer, The Source

          • Hi Anna if that’s the case why does local 40 no longer has Artic bus? I realized that select trips on 66, 204, 207, 720, 754 and 40 have been switching back the regular 40 ft bus instead of the larger bus to maintain high capacity and social distancing. They have the highest ridership in the system but I realized you have been using regular bus on weekdays daytime and during peaks, making them very crowded at times. Furthermore for 910/950 please expand peak frequency until 9am and until 7pm as CSULA and USC students will return to campus beginning in late August, I would expect silver line would be crowded if frequency does not improve when school returns. I would also prefer 910 continuing using the 45ft bus instead of the Artic as it preforms better running on the freeway.

  5. Some of this could have been avoided if Metro had paused Next Gen last spring until the public could actually provide public comment instead of just proceeding full steam ahead with virtual meetings in the middle of a worldwide pandemic.

    • Hi Philip,

      The vast majority of outreach and engagement was done during the 2 years leading up to release of the draft plan in January 2020, and since the release, we completed about 80% of the service plan outreach/review in person before going virtual. Of the virtual workshops, we actually had a much larger public presence and response!

      However, we understand that people’s commutes and transit needs are continuing to change, so we will continue to listen to feedback and take that into consideration going forward.

      Thank you,

      Anna Chen
      Writer, The Source

    • I appreciate the 622 being established to connect 152 riders to Glenoaks and San Fernando Road, I just wish connections between the 152, 294, and 222 could be simplified. I know part of the complication stems from buses being unable to make that tight turn from Roscoe onto Lankershim, necessitating that somewhat strange routing onto Laurel Cyn and Strathern eastbound. A reroute of the 294 between Tuxford and Lankershim wouldn’t do much good. Is there a 622 schedule available yet? How frequent will the shuttle be?

      • Hi,

        The 622 schedule is currently available here and will be available on metro.net on July 18.

        Thank you,

        Anna Chen
        Writer, The Source

        • Hi Anna,

          Thank you for restoring service to the eastern part of the Valley. Will the 622 be combined with the 222 at some point? It’s “orphaned” as it is currently configured as it doesn’t connect a whole lot.

          • I have not looked at the GTFS (general transit feed standard) data, but based on the public timetables, it gives me the impression that Line 622 is “interlined” with Line 222 at Burbank RITC. This means that if I am correct, many Line 622 buses will continue to North Hollywood and Hollywood via Line 222 as a “one seat” ride (and vice versa northbound on Hollywood Way).

  6. They should have reverted back to the original 152 and 163 in the West Valley. This branching 162 and one way loop on the 152 is just plain silly. Everything was working before the so called “consultants” came in and screwed up everything.

  7. Still no service increase for Line 76? After Line 258 is re-routed to Highland Park, Line 260 becomes the only bus linking Pasadena and Alhambra directly. East-west bus like Line 76 doesn’t connect with Line 260 well, especially after 6PM (the southbound Line 260 arriving at Valley Blvd after 6PM are scheduled in a way to just miss Line 76). Walking 1 mile under the 6PM sun is not something exciting, especially after 8-9 hours of stressful work (and I have to do this 5 days a week). Really hope Metro could add the service level for Line 76, especially after 6PM.

    Also, now after the I-710 north extension project is dead, shouldn’t Metro increase bus service between Alhambra and Pasadena as an alternative? But what I see is Line 258 gets re-routed to Highland Park from Pasadena. Could Metro consider to get the northern terminal of Line 258 back to Pasadena? Or to add a new service via Fremont corridor going to the heart of Pasadena?

    • Let’s hope add new bus line service alignment or add alternative existing
      bus line which in Monterey Pass Rd (Monterey Park area) along with Fremont Ave (City border of Alhambra) between Floral Dr and I-10 Fwy or not. Hopefully to make another around in San Gabriel Valley Area with the bus route/line changes. The whole NextGen plan is a waste arrangement. Period!

      • Restoring the bus service on Monterey Pass Rd sounds like a deal. My suggestion is to extend Line 262 (once Phase 3 comes) from ELAC to CSULA via Chavez and Monterey Pass to cover the former segment of Line 258. Unfortunately, only like 40-55 riders (both directions and pre-COVID) board on Monterey Pass/Fremont between Floral and I-10 Fwy. So I doubt Metro will restore service on that portion. If Metro cannot restore bus service on the Monterey Pass, either El Sol would have to change the City Terrace/ELAC route to Monterey Pass, The Spirit would implement a new route on Monterey Pass between ELAC and CSULA, or Metro could implement a new Microservice zone. I predict the latter would be the closest prediction, but only time will tell.

        • It should be noted the Monterey Park Spirit 4 and 5 currently serve Monterey Pass Road and the Corporate Center area. Running the 258 down Eastern is more direct, avoids hill challenges with Corporate Center Drive, and serves the LA County internal services and fire department HQ on Eastern.

          • Hopefully I recommend on the LACMTA Line 262 Long-Line (Hawaiian Gardens – Cal State LA Transit Center) that covered portion along of Monterey Pass/Fremont between Floral and Interstate 10 Fwy on both directions also including Short-Line (East LA College Transit Center – Norwalk of Rosecrans & Pioneer or Los Cerritos Center) by phase 3 or not. Sounds like a deal as well.

          • Line 262 would be a great idea to have service through Monterey Pass Road by extending the service from ELAC to CSULA via Floral Ave & Fremont Ave to get people want to ride the bus instead of wasting gas when people do not feel like driving to work.

      • Hi C. Tran you know I agree with you that we should bring back a metro bus line on Monterey Pass Road because industrial workers on Monterey Pass Road really need a bus service to get home to/from work and I’ve seen numerous people getting on the bus on Monterey Pass Road heading to Cal State LA to catch a Metrolink train to go home. I really want line 258 to run on Monterey Pass Road instead of Floral/Eastern but if line 258 stays on Floral/Eastern then my proposal is to make line 256 extend from CSULA down to Monterey Pass Road/Fremont(between 10 Freeway through the city border of Alhambra & Monterey Park and Floral) then run on 1st St (between Mednik and Atlantic) and end the line at ELAC transit center. Lines 256 and 665 should never merge into line 182 and line 256 should run from ELAC transit Center via 1st St and Monterey Pass Road to CSULA then regular route on Eastern to the Rose Hill Transit center and going through Collis avenue to Highland Park ending at Figueroa/York. If line 256 segment from Highland Park to Pasadena is taken over by Pasadena transit and line 176 is cancelled, then extend line 256 from Highland Park to El Monte station with weekday service between El Monte station and ELAC and weekend service would possibly be between ELAC/CSULA and Alhambra(Garfield/Main). Also Spirit Bus route 4 only runs southbound on Monterey Pass Road from Garvey to Davidson only and turns around to run on Corporate Center to Casuda Canyon through the Monterey Highlands neighborhood to Garvey and back to City Hall in which it might be inconvenient for people on Monterey Pass Road to ride a bus. For line 665 run only from Indiana/Olympic to CSULA and extend to run on Marengo(between City Terrace and Soto) replacing former line 70 to the USC Medical center busway station for connection to the J Line(silver).

        Since line 256 is mentioned above then we could have brought back line 258 on Oak Knoll. My first proposal is to end line 258 to Altadena via Oak Knoll/Lake and my second proposal for line 258 is instead of ending at Altadena, the line could end at either PCC or Lake station via Oak Knoll/Lake.

        • Hey Bill Lam, I totally 100% percent agree with your proposal. It could been canceled or reject NextGen in first place. Apparently, I have been on the LACMTA Line 258 on Monterey Pass Rd / Oak Knoll Ave before since 2018 and last year as well but it was not bad at all. Since the LACMTA Line 258 got rerouted to Highland Park by December 2020 we suggested the Metro should hand over to MBL (Montebello Bus Lines) Local 30 before discontinued the LACMTA 176 portion along Garfield Av, Mission St, Pasadena Ave and York Blvd.

          • I totally agree about having montebello 30 should go to highland park because it felt line like a better streamline of thr routing when along with Line 176 from Main and Huntington on Garfield and the discontinuation of Line 176 it have better coverage of the routing

        • Bill Lam, Line 665 has a mediocre ridership on weekdays, but very low on weekends. While I support Line 182 taking over Line 665, but not on Line 256. Metro should extend Line 182 south to LAC+USC Medical Ctr and East LA via the old Line 252 via Soto, then left on Marengo to CSULA via the old Line 70, and then turnaround to run via Line 665 route to Indiana/Olympic. For Line 256, rerouting to East LA College sounds alright, but I suggest Line 262 to cover the Monterey Pass segment. Even though, Line 256 will be split into 3 lines. I would’ve prefer Line 256 running from Sierra Madre Villa Station to Commerce Center which it will not happen at all. Extending Line 256 to El Monte Station won’t be recommended as it will make the route length more complicated. Instead, Line 176 should come back to service only between El Monte to Garfield/Huntington or South Pasadena Station. Your Line 258 suggestion on Oak Knoll doesn’t sound bad at all. I also prefer extending Line 258 south to either Lakewood Center Mall or Artesia Blue Line Station.

          • Not a random rider, let’s not forget about Sierra Madre, Santa Anita and Baldwin area as well. My first proposal on the Line 487 should extend to Arcadia Station along Sierra Madre and Santa Anita while on Line 487 is used to be including the Line 487A should extend from Santa Anita, Foothill, Baldwin and Sierra Madre. My second proposal on Line 687 should a chance to return with rerouting from Arcadia Station to Allen Station along with Santa Anita and Sierra Madre including the Line 687A should extend from Santa Anita, Foothill, Baldwin and Sierra Madre.

  8. Hi Anna I have a question is there a way to submit any feedback or a suggestion regarding about the changes made to the bus line? Because I am lost and don’t know where to submit any feedback?

  9. All these changes have negatively affected many people, line 28 and 83 discontinued are a huge disservice to riders, line 81 was supposed to increase rides but is not true! it seems like they’re further apart than before, line 81 is always full and a there’s a lot of people standing, no proper social distancing, with the new Covid variant going around you would think they will take more safety measurements but this is worst than before.
    The new service,metro micro in the highland park area is really good but it looks like they only have 3-4 drivers, I have been unable to book 3 times, around 7 PM because of the high demand, we obviously will benefit from more drivers in the are since line 28 and 83 were cancelled, metro micro needs to run later than 9:30 PM, once school season starts it will just get worse, I’m not sure who they think these changes were good for, definitely is not the riders, this is really disappointing.