Reminder: new schedules start this Sunday, Dec. 19

Reminder: Metro service changes will go into effect this Sunday, Dec. 19. For the list of bus lines that will have additional trips, see our previous post here.

Check for changes to your bus line with our online tool at metro.net/mybus. You can get info specific to your trip, or download the new schedule and map for the line. A brochure summarizing all bus service changes is also available here. If you use Transit app, Metro’s official smartphone app, schedule changes will appear by Dec. 19.

Metro Micro will also begin service in a new zone, the UCLA/Westwood/VA Medical Center, on Dec. 13. Hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday to Friday. Rides are $1 and can be booked via the Metro Micro app, online at book.metro-micro.net or by calling 323.GOMETRO.

At this time, we are not collecting fare on buses. Regular fares apply on Metro Rail and other services. Fare collection on buses will restart on Jan. 10, 2022. See this Source post to learn how you can get discounted fares and half-price passes or follow us on Twitter @metrolosangeles for updates.

Masks are still required when riding public transit. Please be sure to wear a mask on Metro.

12 replies

  1. Hello,
    I looked at the mybus.metro.net site. It’s kind of strange. It doesn’t have all the lines, like the new 660 being created as part of these changes. Also, some lines, like the 70 will have “more weekday trips” but it says no changes are being made to the schedule, with a link to view the current schedule.

  2. Still no service increase for Line 76 and 260 for weekdays after 6PM… Frequency of westbound Line 76 is below 30 minutes after 6:30PM in middle of the route (even worse than Line 179). Really inconvenient for those who get off from work at 5:30PM or after.

    • Honestly, at this point, at least you’re being given an honest schedule. Buses that are currently scheduled to run 7-10 min throughout the day are in fact still running 15-20 min because of the bus bunching and Metro turning the other way.

  3. Let us start with the somewhat positive. Acknowledging the danger of overloading Downtown DASH route E, every other route 51 bus will serve the 7th St. corridor west of downtown to Alvarado where they will use the layover zone on Westlake freed up by the truncation of the 487/489. My prediction is within a year the other trips, which will now terminate at Flower, will also serve Alvarado or even resume having Vermont as it’s endpoint. 7th Street in that area has huge ridership.

    The bad is the 2/200 merger. From the beginning many of us advocates, Metro operators, etc. have warned it will be a disaster. Two routes that struggle to keep on schedule merging — what could go wrong? The Sunset corridor east of Alvarado will be thrown into turmoil with only the 4 serving it. Choke points galore. Many of us will be surprised if it lasts a year.

    The intriguing is the various NextGen proposals that were not implemented and are seemingly in limbo. Some were bad ideas in my opinion, like the 180/217 merger and the 610 taking over the 210 North of Wilshire. No sign if they are delayed or no longer to be implemented.

    Frankly I hope I am wrong and it is all a huge success. The transit industry as a whole is struggling to recover from the impact of the pandemic (commuter rail has been especially hammered) so despite my misgivings about launching a restructuring in such circumstances I wish Metro good luck with it.

    • Honestly, I suggest Line 51 should continue to serve Vermont Av and have short line trips end at 7th/Metro or Alvarado St. I agree that the 7th St corridor has a huge ridership (higher than 6th and 8th St); and I won’t be surprised if there will be over 20 comments over the truncation of Line 51, and then Metro reverts the Line 51 the way it was before December 19th, 2021. I strongly oppose the new Line 51 truncation as DASH E has a shorter hour of operation and also it doesn’t operate on major holidays which riders on 7th St will now lose service on the holidays especially if 7th/Metro becomes a permanent terminal for all Line 51 trips. As speaking of the northern truncation of Line 51, Metro should relocate the southern terminal of Line 51 to Harbor Gateway Transit Center similar to the old branch of Line 52. Metro should’ve absorbed Line 52 into Line 51 via the old route of Line 52 from Koreatown to HGTC.

      For Line 2/200 merge; although, it sounds good and interesting on paper. But all honesty, I believe it’ll be a huge disaster as Alvarado St actually have way more riders than the entire Sunset Av (at least in the part of Line 2 retaining). Metro should’ve created a Rapid Line 702 running from Expo/USC to UCLA via the new Line 2 that will be effective on Sunday; although it’ll definitely won’t happen as Metro successfully killed most of the Rapids. Along with Line 2 serving Alvarado St, Metro should renumber the line to Line 100 to match with 100 series bus routes as it’ll no longer serve DTLA. The only thing I fully support on this merge is that the entire Sunset and Alvarado corridor will now have an OWL service.

      Although, I quite support the 180/217 merge; but similar with the 2/200 merge, it’ll become an issue with the traffic as well. I just wish Metro brought back Line 780 or retained the 780 until at least the merge of 180/217 occurred. I heard the reason on why 180/217 merge didn’t happen this month as they need to work on the speed improvements that NextGen had promised. Aside of 180/217 merge, Metro should reroute Line 180 back from Brand Bl to Central Av in Downtown Glendale as riders were now be forced to walk to the Galleria further than it used to. The Glendale Beeline 1 isn’t a better alternative as it only run from 6AM to 7PM daily and also it doesn’t operate on major holidays similar to DASH Line E.

      The 210/610 split looks like it may happen when the first phase of the Purple Line extension open for service in 2024. If Line 610 gets created and Line 210 gets truncated, I would like to see Line 610 run from Pico/Rimpau to Hollywood/Highland to reduce transfers from riders. It would be interesting if Line 18 or 66 covered the Vine portion of Line 210 or proposed Line 610?. However it will be an issue with Line 66 as it operates articulated buses; and it would become an issue in the Rossmore portion of Lines 210/610?.

      The NextGen in all honesty had some good changes. But it had some terrible changes like the 51 truncation to DTLA/Westlake, Line 180 rerouting from Central to Brand, Line 130 split into 2 different agencies (although it was planned since the 2010s), the Rapid elimination, etc.

      After Phase 3 have occurred on Sunday, unfortunately more bad changes will come in 2022 like Line 115’s truncation to Sepulveda instead of PDR, the 120/621 split in Norwalk Stn, Line 155 being shortened to Universal (although it is likely going to be retained), Line 205 no longer serving HGTC, etc. Hopefully with the demand, Metro can restore discontinued route segments like Vineland (between NoHo and Universal; either Line 90 or 162 extension should cover the portion), Manhattan Beach Bl (either a revival of Line 126 or an extension of Line 209), Arlington Av (north of Expo; revert the old Line 209 route with the deviation continuing to serve the Expo station), Sierra Madre Bl (either an extension of Line 287 or 487), San Fernando Rd (between Broadway and Brand; this portion should be given as an extension of Line 294), Duarte Rd (should be transferred by an extension of Foothill Line 272 or Metro Line 179), Central Av (downtown Glendale; revert the old Line 180 route), etc., and prevent discontinuation on other routes.

      • Not a random rider, I agree on that but the NextGen is not over yet there might be around Phase 4 & Phase 5 service changes since the Regional Connector Completion that will be turned to A (Blue Line), E (Expo Line) would remain LA Metro Rail Line also including on the L (Gold Line) would be discontinued by 2022. The E (Expo Line) might be stay on current color or change for the color to gold so let’s see find out for 2022. By the way, hopefully on the LACMTA Line 258 must be truncated to Cal State LA Transit Center in the future and could a chance to bring back service on Monterey Pass Rd via Fremont Ave (between Floral Dr and I-10 Fwy) so I would highly recommend for suggested to make proposed changes to add new bus local (600 series line) as new Line 658 (ELAC Transit Center – Highland Park) that covers of Monterey Pass Rd via Fremont Ave or if not hopefully there could be a optional bus lines would be Montebello Bus Line 10 for new service extension to Cal State LA University Transit Center that will be cover of Monterey Pass Road via Fremont Avenue as well.

        Although, I highly recommended for the Montebello Bus Lines 30 should be making a new service extension to Pasadena for the last stop of Lake Ave / I-210 Fwy Station which is the Montebello Bus Lines 30 (South Gate – Pasadena) on both directions that will be covered for portion of Oak Knoll Ave via Lake Av. Anyways, I do agree to bring back services on Sierra Madre Boulevard if the Metro should be re-added for last stop extension to the Arcadia Station on Line 487 in first place instead of Sierra Madre Villa Station with duplication service of the Foothill Transit Line 187 and Pasadena Transit Line 31. That’s will be lot of sense to it!

        Hopefully on the LACMTA Line 258 would not be served on I-10 Fwy in the future but the LACMTA Silver J Lines, Line 487 and other Foothill Transit bus lines that served on I-10 Fwy Express Lanes will be stayed at it is. LACMTA Line 258 (Paramount Town Center CSULA Transit Center) so that way the Metro buses will put not in service back to El Monte Division 9.

        The Metro could be chance back service with discontinued service of Barham Blvd and so I would highly recommended to add all day trips on the LACMTA Line 224 (Sylmar Station – Hollywood) instead of night owl service including Line 222 should bring back service on Barham Boulevard that goes to directly instead of duplication service on the Universal / Studio City Station which is not directly. Also the LACMTA Line 237 should re-adding for last stop extension to the Universal / Studio City Station that’s lot of sense instead on the Line 222 that covers discontinued portion of Vineland Ave between Ventura Bl and Riverside Drive on the LACMTA Line 237.

        • Hey C.Trans. Retaining Line 258 stop at CSULA is a crucial as it had 250 southbound and 150 northbound boardings in October 2019 (Pre-COVID and before it was rerouted to Highland Park). In my honest thoughts, I believe the Montebello Bus Lines 10 and 30 extensions to CSULA (via Monterey Pass) and Lake Bl Station (via Oak Knoll) to cover the old segments of Line 258 make more sense than creating a split between Line 258 and proposed Line 658.

          For the Braham Bl segment. Although I agree what you said about Lines 222 and 224. But from I heard, Metro rerouted Line 222 to serve Universal Station as they wanted to create a one seat ride from Hollywood/Burbank Airport to Universal City Station. Although, Line 155 had plans to discontinue service east of Universal to Burbank in favor the frequent Burbank Pink Line. Due to the fact of the Pink Line only runs on weekdays, Metro decided to keep the 155 intact for now. As an alternative suggestion, I think Line 155 should be relocated between Universal and Pass Av. Line 155 will run via Lankershim, Cahuenga Pass, Barham Av, Pass Av, to Riverisde Dr via the regular route of Line 155. Line 222 would instead have a minor reroute (northbound only) via Riverside Dr and Hollywood Wy instead of Alameda Bl and Hollywood Wy. For Line 224, similar to your suggestion, extending selected trips south to Hollywood all day is a great deal. Back when Line 420 used to operate on the Cahuenga Pass, it was packed nearly all the time. So bringing service back on Cahuenga Pass and Highland Bl would’ve been amazing.

          – For Vineland Bl segment, I’m fine if Line 237 was ever brought back on Vineland Bl south of North Hollywood to Universal. But, I believe extending Lines 90 or 162 to Universal makes more sense as both lines have a stronger and more travel opportunities than Line 237; and I have a suggestion regarding to Line 237. Similar to the proposed Lines 158 and 167 swap. I would like to see Lines 154 and 237 to be swapped. Line 154 would run directly on Burbank Bl from Burbank Station to Tarzana with the deviation to serve the North Hollywood Station. Although, I wish Line 154 service west of Sepulveda to Tarzana was restored. For Line 237, I have 2 route change suggestion that they should do aside with the swap:
          – In Granada Hills, Line 237 should have a minor reroute via Woodley, Rinaldi, Balboa, San Fernando Mission Bl, Hayvenhurst Ave, Chatsworth St to regular route to Encino in order to make better connections with the Granada Hills Recreation Center and Tulsa Street Elementary School.
          – From Sepulveda/Victory to North Hollywood, Line 237 would be modified to run via Sepulveda Bl, Oxnard St, and Lankershim Bl to North Hollywood Station. Although service of operation of both Lines 237 and 154 are different. Both lines should have the same hour of operation from 5 AM to 10 PM and the same frequency (40-60′ on weekdays; 60′ on weekends).

    • “Frankly I hope I am wrong and it is all a huge success. The transit industry as a whole is struggling to recover from the impact of the pandemic (commuter rail has been especially hammered) so despite my misgivings about launching a restructuring in such circumstances I wish Metro good luck with it.”

      No, I hope you’re right, the feds really need to see how much of a failed agency Metro has become especially after all these changes. The agency is a major need of an BoD and executive overhaul and I hope after Garcetti is out, we can begin seeing such changes. Clearly many people are not enjoying these changes, but because those in dire need of the system won’t speak up, this is still getting rolled out.

      “The bad is the 2/200 merger. From the beginning many of us advocates, Metro operators, etc. have warned it will be a disaster.”

      You know, it’s funny you mentioned this. I genuinely thought they wouldn’t execute it because they ended up not doing so for 180/217, yet somehow on this it’s fine The 2 broke off at Westwood only for Metro to execute this horrible merger. This will probably be the disaster that will begin restore everything back to normal.

      This was not the time for any type of bus overhaul. This should have been paused until June 2022 when more people were able to give their opinions on the matter, but my only question now is why this agency was so dead set persistent on making these non-wanted changes happen?

      • The Metro transit planners need to be realized it shouldn’t have been done with terrible change as the 10 board members could have been vote no on the NextGen Plan and that’s way to keep it until the pandemic situation is over. That’s why the Metro has gone downhill to put endangered bus lines got into wrong direction with this horrible NextGen change.

        Keep in mind, the San Diego MTS and NCTD has done a great job of the San Diego Regional Plan Forward to add the NextGen Rapid but not likely the Los Angeles Metro has not done a great job with tried to remove 18 rapid bus line services but only 3 rapid bus lines left so the LA Metro has almost killed on their Rapid successfully. Everybody knows the LA Metro Rapid services since 21 years ago that Metro Rapid operates back then.

  4. Who’s dumb idea was it at Metro to put the new system maps on Dropbox instead of having downloadable PDFs? Those maps can’t be easily zoomed in, especially on mobile devices. Totally useless. Please go back to the correct way and stop using third party apps.