LAist: 20 Bus Lines on the MTA's Chopping Block

Wad

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:13:19 -0800

"Reduce service frequency to increase productivity." HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL? Productivity is measured by the number of passengers per bus per hour. Metro's target is to have 30 passengers/hour. For instance, if 30 people get on and off a line with an end-to-end time of one hour, that meets the productivity goal. If 15 people ride a line that's a half-hour long, that's the same figure. This benchmark allows bus routes with different ridership levels and frequencies to be measured against one another. So if ridership falls on a line, then the service is reduced to bring the route up to the productivity threshold. In the case of Line 156, reducing the service was inevitable. Before 2000, it was Line 420, and used to be tremendously productive. It would run on Broadway in downtown L.A., then the 101 to Santa Monica, then Highland and would follow its present route, but it went to Roscoe and Van Nuys in Panorama City. As time went on, the line became more irrelevant. The Red Line opened and the line did not need to go to downtown L.A. The line was then eliminated on Santa Monica and Van Nuys, where it duplicated other local bus lines. Then the Orange Line opened, and since that parallels 156, most riders switched to the busway.

panasonicyouth

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:32:41 -0800

This is actually what pisses me off the most. In the justification for reducing service on the 156, it says: "Reduce service frequency to increase productivity." HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL? So glad I stopped taking the Metro!

plm

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:51:52 -0800

michael,i think that is a very ignorant statement. a lot of people take that bus line for more than just a convenient trip to the airport. it cuts across town and connects people to several other bus lines. by mta cutting the amount of service lines limits the distance people can and are willing to travel for jobs and other activities. it clearly shows a lack of concern for those who don't have a car. this city is over run by motorists and pollution, and rather than finding alternatives to the mess, they block any attempts at progress. all this does is give l.a. residents another reason to get in their cars and clog up the roads.

Lindsay William-Ross

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:07:44 -0800

michael, your is logically flawed; not all people who take flights have disposable income. you assume that the person flying is the purchaser of the ticket, and that the ticket was priced high (as opposed to a fare that was purchased via points, by someone else on behalf of the person flying, at a reduced fare, or on a bereavement fare). just because you're headed to a plane doesn't mean you're tossing money around. i would number myself among the ranks of people who've been on a flight but had to pinch pennies at every turn. i will grant that the flyaway is still a good, reasonably priced service, but you still have to get to its terminal points (van nuys parking lot or union station). if you're an mta pass holder and would normally be able to hop the bus from union station to LAX (considering the green line stops short of the airport--way to go, metro!) now you'll have to shell out more cash to take the flyaway. it's just one less way to get people to an important place in the city. i think any cuts in service are outrageous, especially when service is already an issue for transit riders, with limited hours of service on routes, and general unreliability.

michael

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:57:58 -0800

who would take a metro bus all the way to lax when you have the flyaway anyway? for a couple extra bucks... i think i'd rather choose the flyaway. and this doesn't have much to do with income or fare increases, because let's face it, if you can afford a flight you can afford the flyaway to get there.

manmademound

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:38:43 -0800

Outrageous. We should all be disappointed in the MTA. While budget cuts are definitely a real thing, a complete bus system in the backbone to any transit system and we must maintain any and all lines that are already in existence. It's easy for them to take them away but how easy is it to put them back when they're needed? And who says they're not needed anyways? Just because ridership isn't sky high, doesn't mean people don't rely on them every day to get where they need to go.