To consolidate, disseminate, and gather information concerning the 710 expansion into our San Rafael neighborhood and into our surrounding neighborhoods. If you have an item that you would like posted on this blog, please e-mail the item to Peggy Drouet at pdrouet@earthlink.net
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Los Angeles Eyes a More Frequent Bus Network for No New Cost
The tradeoffs would include more crowded buses and some service cuts.
The big trend in U.S. transit bus service is to do more
with less—or, in some senses, to do something different with the same.
So we see cities like Houston and Omaha
redesigning their bus systems, at zero additional cost, into networks
that cover less territory than before but that run more frequently where
they do go. That crowd may soon get a high-profile new face: Los
Angeles.
At least that’s the service direction indicated by a series of recent
documents posted online by L.A. Metro’s Blue Ribbon Committee, a panel
tasked with suggesting a new transit vision for the city. Over thecourseoffivemeetings dating back to February, the committee has drafted a service plan
that centers around an expanded network of frequent bus—those running
at least every 15 minutes. Here’s the proposed map (spotted by Human Transit), with proposed expansions in red and purple:
A
draft map of frequent bus service in Los Angeles. Dark blue routes
already run every 15 minutes; those in red and purple are proposed
frequent network expansions. (LA Metro)The plan would give Angelinos something closer to reliable all-day transit service. That’s a great benefit
to any city: it reduces car reliance, promotes equitable mobility, and
ultimately increases transit ridership. It’s also a great thing for
riders, because it means they can more or less show up at a stop without
consulting a schedule and know a bus will come soon.
But that sort of flexibility comes with some costs. In this case, it
looks like there are three main ones (which appear to have emerged from a
network analysis conducted by the American Public Transportation
Association):
More crowded rush-hour buses. Right now L.A. buses
have an all-day “loading standard” of 1.3—meaning they allow 1.3
passengers for every seat. The new plan would up that standard to 1.4
during rush hour. The last thing any commuter wants is a more crowded
bus, but in reality we’re talking about a matter of four-to-six people
per bus, depending on its size. And the move would help keep down costs,
because it means Metro wouldn’t have to run as many peak buses. Fewer bus stops. The Metro draft plan also
considers consolidating bus stops—in other words, eliminating some that
currently exist. That will mean a bit of a longer walk to and from the
bus stop for some riders, but it also means a faster ride. So long as
the pedestrian infrastructure in a city keeps up with new walking
demands, getting rid of some bus stops can actually improve service for the system as a whole.
Less coverage to low-ridership corridors. Last but
not least, the draft plan also calls for service cuts on some of the bus
system’s lower-ridership routes. Again, that will result in lost or
worse service for some Angelinos, and likely some who rely on transit to
get around. But in the absence of new bus funding it’s the surest way
to balance out the money going toward the increased frequency on other
parts of the system.
So there it is: a faster network in exchange for a slightly smaller
one. Some of the documents indicate the Blue Ribbon Committee has even
grander sights; in an earlier meeting, it presented a map
of an even more rapid system, complete with two tiers of bus-rapid
transit running every five minutes (below, in dark red and red). A
system this impressive would no doubt require an equally impressive
source of funding, but it’s an encouraging glimpse into Metro’s ideal
vision for the city:
A
proposed strategic bus network would have two tiers of BRT service
running every 5 minutes as part of a broad frequent service network. (LA
Metro)The Metro documents indicate the new draft policy will be taken to the Metro Board of Directors in July 2015.
Until then it remains subject to change, and of course it also remains
subject to rejection. But if nothing else it shows the city is trying to
do a bit better with what it’s been given.