New city systems?
rigg
subway system in 1970. San Francisco
got started recently(last 30 years)too.
Which other cities have built subways
"from scratch" in the last 30 years?
Not just the US, but worldwide?
Can anyone recommend a non-academic
book that is about subways and inner-city
rail systems? I'm looking for something
a layman can understand.
Thanks!
-rig
Merritt Mullen
> Washington D.C. started their extensive
> subway system in 1970. San Francisco
> got started recently(last 30 years)too.
BART is not as recent as that. Discussions about building BART started in
1946 and the BART district was created in 1957. Construction started in in
1964 and the system opened for service in 1972.
For a history of the development of BART, go to their history page at:
http://www.bart.gov/about/history/history_1.asp
Merritt
mike wills
> Washington D.C. started their extensive
> subway system in 1970. San Francisco
> got started recently(last 30 years)too.
>
> Which other cities have built subways
> "from scratch" in the last 30 years?
> Not just the US, but worldwide?
>
baltimore [i think]
atlanta
newcastle, uk
Merritt Mullen
> rigge...@my-deja.com (rigg) wrote in message
> news:<c23229fd.0107...@posting.google.com>...
>> Washington D.C. started their extensive
>> subway system in 1970. San Francisco
>> got started recently(last 30 years)too.
>>
>> Which other cities have built subways
>> "from scratch" in the last 30 years?
>> Not just the US, but worldwide?
>>
> los angeles
> baltimore [i think]
> atlanta
> newcastle, uk
Yes, Baltimore is one. How about Montreal and Mexico City?
Merritt
C Y
"Merritt Mullen" <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote in message
news:B76738D2.472D1%mmu...@ispchannel.com...
The highly successful MTR subway in Hong Kong began service, from scratch,
in 1979 and is currently operating a railway network of 82.2 kilometres (51
miles) route with 44 stations. It carries a daily patronage of over 2.2
million passengers. The recently (1998) opened extension connects the new
Hong Kong International Airport to the heart of the city in just 23 minutes.
The train schedule is based on passenger demand, taking into account the
morning and evening peaks on normal working days. For instance, during the
morning peak hours, 8-car trains with a capacity for 2,500 passengers will
run at 2 minute intervals, carrying 75,000 passengers per hour per direction
on the Tsuen Wan Line. Each of the Urban Lines , however, is capable of
running 34 trains per hour in each direction. This gives a full capacity of
85,000 passengers for each Urban Line in each direction.
Significant progress has been made with the construction of new lines and
associated property developments. The Tsueng Kwan O Extension will be
completed by 2002. Negotiations with the government have taken place
relating to the construction of new extensions including the Disney Rail
Link and the North Island Line.
(above taken from http://www.mtrcorp.com/eng/homepage/index.html)
I came from Hong Kong. The inefficiency with which L.A. attempts to build a
mass transit system and to deal with the traffic nightmare is infuriating.
Mass transit in L.A. is primarily for the transit-dependent, which means
that the options available to those of us who would choose to use public
transit is limited. I mean, how else would you explain MTA dropping express
lines (402, 412, 436, 466, 434 Express, 443, 457, 462, 470/471) and add
limited stop lines (340, 362, 394)?? Rapid Bus? I haven't seen one running
anywhere near where I live, and they can't possibly go faster than me
driving. Other transit agencies are not so quick on expanding their
services either. (I can count the number of new express lines serving new
areas on one hand: 499, 549, 690). If I don't happen to be travelling where
there's a rapid bus or an all-day express (a rare breed) within the
immediate vicinity, going from Point A to Point B in L.A. outside of the
"rush hour", which is currently defined as 6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m., Monday
thru Friday, but in reality lasts daily from 4:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. (ask
anyone who drives on the 60 or the 91) can easily take a couple of hours. (A
trip from Downtown to Diamond Bar at 7 p.m. on a weeknight takes one hour
and 45 minutes -- don't look at the schedule, Foothill drivers don't follow
them.)
Granted that a lot of commuters didn't choose to ride the MTA -- I don't
blame them, most of the MTA freeway expresses were run on dirty buses with
etched windows, cut seat, and with occasional urine smell, but eliminating
these services is eliminating our options. And unless you live in the few
selected cities, the Metrolink is either not available, or it only runs a
few times during "rush hour". So let's see, can't take the bus, Prop A
prevents anymore subway to be built (that has got to be the most bonehead
proposition, ever.), the I-5 expansion into Downtown and the Exporail won't
happen for at least another 10 years. And last I heard, nothing is done on
the 710 extension or any other new freeway (and if there is, red tape will
tie it up for years.) Nice future.
Kymberleigh Richards
wrote:
>Mass transit in L.A. is primarily for the transit-dependent, which means
>that the options available to those of us who would choose to use public
>transit is limited. I mean, how else would you explain MTA dropping express
>lines (402, 412, 436, 466, 434 Express, 443, 457, 462, 470/471) and add
>limited stop lines (340, 362, 394)??
Simple. Ridership declined on the express services (probably because
freeway congestion ate up any potential time savings, so paying the
zone charge was no longer attractive).
In the meantime, demand on the arterials where the limited stop lines
grew, with significant numbers moving between the major streets, so
the 300s became attractive.
Any transit agency will remove underused service to beef up service
where demand is outstripping supply. There is also likely some
shifting of where the ridership goes; downtown is not the catch-all
employment center it used to be (and the express lines you quoted are
all 400s, terminating downtown).
==========================================================================================
Kymberleigh Richards
Public Affairs Director, Southern California Transit Advocates <http://socata.lerctr.org>
Senior Metro Passenger Advisor, Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Associate Member, California Transit Association
Webmaster, Valley Transit Insider <http://home.pacbell.net/krichrds/>
==========================================================================================
charles hobbs
Kymberleigh Richards wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 23:13:01 GMT, "C Y" <carl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Mass transit in L.A. is primarily for the transit-dependent, which means
> >that the options available to those of us who would choose to use public
> >transit is limited. I mean, how else would you explain MTA dropping express
> >lines (402, 412, 436, 466, 434 Express, 443, 457, 462, 470/471) and add
> >limited stop lines (340, 362, 394)??
>
> Simple. Ridership declined on the express services (probably because
> freeway congestion ate up any potential time savings, so paying the
> zone charge was no longer attractive).
Also, most of those routes didn't have a lot of freeway running time to
begin with (single zone). There are still plenty of routes that have longer
sections of freeway travel; these make more sense.
Also, the rail services (Blue Line vs. 457 and Metrolink vs. 466) were
a factor in these routes' ultimate demise.
Carl Yuan
Kymberleigh Richards <kric...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3b428def...@news.pacbell.net...
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 23:13:01 GMT, "C Y" <carl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Mass transit in L.A. is primarily for the transit-dependent, which means
> >that the options available to those of us who would choose to use public
> >transit is limited. I mean, how else would you explain MTA dropping
express
> >lines (402, 412, 436, 466, 434 Express, 443, 457, 462, 470/471) and add
> >limited stop lines (340, 362, 394)??
>
> Simple. Ridership declined on the express services (probably because
> freeway congestion ate up any potential time savings, so paying the
> zone charge was no longer attractive).
>
Ok, then name ONE local or limited line that replaced these lines and saved
time. I mean, can you think of a FASTER way to get to Downtown Burbank, Mar
Vista, La Mirada, Santa Monica, Redondo Beach, North Long Beach, Commerce
and Montebello via public transit than these lines? And why was that the
lines took over by LADOT (413, 419, 423, 430, 431, 437, 438, 448) not only
were able to remain in service, but in some cases increase frequency and/or
areas served? I used to live in Mar Vista, but I'd drive to Palms to take
the 431 to work in Downtown rather than taking the 436 right outside my
door. Why? Dirty buses. I also lived in Brentwood for awhile, but I
didn't take the 322 to Downtown, even though it a "Limited" line. Why? Too
slow!! Limited buses, even these Rapid Buses, can't run red lights and
drive through cars, even on Wilshire.
> In the meantime, demand on the arterials where the limited stop lines
> grew, with significant numbers moving between the major streets, so
> the 300s became attractive.
>
Yes, L.A.'s population is growing by the day. The number of autos on the
road grow, and so does the number of transit-dependent. Taking away service
from those who are transit-optional and give it to the transit-dependent is
exactly my point.
> Any transit agency will remove underused service to beef up service
> where demand is outstripping supply. There is also likely some
> shifting of where the ridership goes; downtown is not the catch-all
> employment center it used to be (and the express lines you quoted are
> all 400s, terminating downtown).
>
Yes. And how many OTHER express lines does the MTA operate? Let me see.
Oh, the 550, the 561, and the 576. The 550 may as well be a 400 line, with
the express portion starting near from USC. The 576 is the "Nanny
Express"--it goes into Beverly Hills and Malibu in the morning. The 561 is
almost as good as a local line, and do you know that there's no transfer
point between the 561 and the 573 or the 574, even though they all run on
the 405, even though both the 561 and the 573 runs through Westwood Blvd??
I can't wait till the day MTA actually serves the ENTIRE population of
Greater Los Angeles, and consider other parts of the Greater L.A. important
enough to build a network of express buses to move poeple around. I mean,
just look at the freeway traffic, that should give you some idea where
people are going. For the time being, going from Point A to Point B, most
likely I'd be transferring somewhere in Downtown, if I'm lucky. Would
anyone honestly believe that people would give up their cars to wait, maybe
a long time, at bus stops, or sit through the entire stretch of Wilshire Bl,
Venice Blvd, San Fernando Rd., to get to where they want to go?
Herc Wad
>I can't wait till the day MTA actually serves the ENTIRE population of
>Greater Los Angeles, and consider other parts of the Greater L.A. important
>enough to build a network of express buses to move poeple around.
I would like to see that happen, but politics is dictating that MTA shrink its
service area. Transit zones are the WAVE OF THE FUTURE~! Zero co-ordination
between agencies GETS VOTES~!
Not that I'm happy with this development. The way MTA is breaking up bits and
pieces of its service area (a line here, segments of a line there), it appears
to be that MTA is trying to go for an "optimum service area." What it's looking
like is the Detroitization of the bus service.
The Detroit metropolitan area has two bus services, DDOT and SMART. SMART is
the suburban service and DDOT is the ghetto service. MTA is starting to look
like DDOT.
>I mean,
>just look at the freeway traffic, that should give you some idea where
>people are going.
That doesn't mean a bus will likely do well if it followed the same path.
Remember, express buses cannot pick up riders on the express portion. Busways
correct this problem.
"Can't living with the bill means it won't become law." -President George W.
Bush
SoCalTIP-http://socaltip.tipnetworks.org
charles hobbs
Carl Yuan wrote:
> Kymberleigh Richards <kric...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3b428def...@news.pacbell.net...
> > On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 23:13:01 GMT, "C Y" <carl...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Mass transit in L.A. is primarily for the transit-dependent, which means
> > >that the options available to those of us who would choose to use public
> > >transit is limited. I mean, how else would you explain MTA dropping
> express
> > >lines (402, 412, 436, 466, 434 Express, 443, 457, 462, 470/471) and add
> > >limited stop lines (340, 362, 394)??
> >
> > Simple. Ridership declined on the express services (probably because
> > freeway congestion ate up any potential time savings, so paying the
> > zone charge was no longer attractive).
> >
>
> Ok, then name ONE local or limited line that replaced these lines and saved
> time. I mean, can you think of a FASTER way to get to Downtown Burbank,
Ummm...Metrolink?
> Mar Vista,
LADOT #437 on Culver?
> La Mirada,
That's a tough one. Most of the commuters probably switched to
Metrolink at Norwalk/SF Springs. I was hoping that LADOT or
Montebello would take over the #466 for those who still might
want it, but no luck.
> Santa Monica
Big Blue Bus #10
> , Redondo Beach,
MTA #439 is still up, but LADOT #438 is faster (although only three
rt's/weekday)
> North Long Beach, Commerce
> and Montebello via public transit than these lines?
> And why was that the
> lines took over by LADOT (413, 419, 423, 430, 431, 437, 438, 448) not only
> were able to remain in service, but in some cases increase frequency and/or
> areas served? I used to live in Mar Vista, but I'd drive to Palms to take
> the 431 to work in Downtown rather than taking the 436 right outside my
> door. Why? Dirty buses.
I lived in Palms about 12 years ago, just as LADOT was taking over these lines.
I wanted
them to take over the #436 so bad, but they never bit...
C Y
"charles hobbs" <cho...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B4298A8...@socal.rr.com...
The Blue Line is definitely no replacement for the 457. Have you tried
them?
C Y
>
>
> Carl Yuan wrote:
>
> > Kymberleigh Richards <kric...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:3b428def...@news.pacbell.net...
> > > On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 23:13:01 GMT, "C Y" <carl...@earthlink.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Mass transit in L.A. is primarily for the transit-dependent, which
means
> > > >that the options available to those of us who would choose to use
public
> > > >transit is limited. I mean, how else would you explain MTA dropping
> > express
> > > >lines (402, 412, 436, 466, 434 Express, 443, 457, 462, 470/471) and
add
> > > >limited stop lines (340, 362, 394)??
> > >
> > > Simple. Ridership declined on the express services (probably because
> > > freeway congestion ate up any potential time savings, so paying the
> > > zone charge was no longer attractive).
> > >
> >
> > Ok, then name ONE local or limited line that replaced these lines and
saved
> > time. I mean, can you think of a FASTER way to get to Downtown Burbank,
>
> Ummm...Metrolink?
My bad...I meant to say the media center portion of Burbank, where 412 used
to take you straight to, now you have to transfer in Downtown Burbank.
>
> > Mar Vista,
>
> LADOT #437 on Culver?
>
That goes on Washington, then turns on Culver Bl into Culver City, so,
another transfer (probably SM#14)....and an extra wait of up to 15 or 30
minutes.
> > La Mirada,
>
> That's a tough one. Most of the commuters probably switched to
> Metrolink at Norwalk/SF Springs. I was hoping that LADOT or
> Montebello would take over the #466 for those who still might
> want it, but no luck.
>
I think LADOT should just run all the suburban express lines.
>
> > Santa Monica
>
> Big Blue Bus #10
>
On a bad day (or time of the day), it would take an extra 15-20 minutes to
traverse the portion of Santa Monica Bl from Bundy to 4th St. in SM. I
think there should be a transfer between SM10 and the MTA434 (maybe at
Fairfax), even though it's less desirable than a non-stop run from Downtown
L.A. to Downtown Santa Monica.
> > , Redondo Beach,
>
> MTA #439 is still up, but LADOT #438 is faster (although only three
> rt's/weekday)
>
The amount of time it takes the 439 to get to Redondo Beach (or even LAX,
for that matter) is a joke. I have to commend LADOT for tweaking the 438 to
make it a more efficient service to the beach cities (El Segundo, Manhattan
Beach, Redondo Beach). But, as you said, it only runs three times each way
a day. And I think the 443 still gets to Redondo Beach faster, plus it also
served parts of South Bay (west of Hawthorne Bl) that now can only be
reached by transferring. The 130 runs every 30 minutes most of the time.
> > North Long Beach, Commerce
> > and Montebello via public transit than these lines?
>
> > And why was that the
> > lines took over by LADOT (413, 419, 423, 430, 431, 437, 438, 448) not
only
> > were able to remain in service, but in some cases increase frequency
and/or
> > areas served? I used to live in Mar Vista, but I'd drive to Palms to
take
> > the 431 to work in Downtown rather than taking the 436 right outside my
> > door. Why? Dirty buses.
>
> I lived in Palms about 12 years ago, just as LADOT was taking over these
lines.
> I wanted
> them to take over the #436 so bad, but they never bit...
>
>
I agree. I think MTA should restore all the express lines it cancelled and
turn them over to LADOT.
There should not be a reduction of transit service and options when traffic
is a commonly acknowledged problem that's compounding daily. Taking away
options from us transit-optional only put more cars on the road. There are
a lot of people willing to try public transit, if the options are there.
C Y
"Herc Wad" <her...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20010704070330...@ng-mr1.aol.com...
That's what I mean, bus stops on or near the freeways and transit centers
near every freeway interchange would allow efficient transfers and maximum
flexibility. And I think there should be express lines running on every
freeway with limited stops, all day long. Right now, there's no express
service at all on the 405 south of LAX and north of Ventura Bl, the 605
north of Norwalk, and the 60 (the 482 is a local line, really, and the
Metrolink only runs five times a day, but the freeway is jammed all day all
night long). Is there a lot of traffic on these freeways and thus justify
some kind of express transit options? You bet.
New freeways and new subways are impossible dreams, at least for the time
being. New light rails are at least ten years away. The easiest and the
least costliest thing to do, I believe, is to put more, a lot more, express
buses on the road. Nice clean frequent buses in an efficient network of
express lines using existing carpool lanes running all day long. You know,
MTA was on the right track with the El Monte Busway and, more recently, when
they started the 550 and expanded the 445 into all-day service. Look at the
Hollywood Bowl Shuttles, it shows that the transit-optional will use public
transit if it's efficient and available.
Herc Wad
>That's what I mean, bus stops on or near the freeways and transit centers
>near every freeway interchange would allow efficient transfers and maximum
>flexibility.
Please, PLEASE tell me you're not referring to bus pullouts. This is like those
stops on Foothill 480 or Golden Gate Transit 80 in the Bay Area where the bus
gets out at an off-ramp, serves a bus stop and gets back on a freeway. These
take forever to serve, and the bus would have to fight back into traffic.
>And I think there should be express lines running on every
>freeway with limited stops, all day long. Right now, there's no express
>service at all on the 405 south of LAX and north of Ventura Bl, the 605
>north of Norwalk, and the 60 (the 482 is a local line, really, and the
>Metrolink only runs five times a day, but the freeway is jammed all day all
>night long). Is there a lot of traffic on these freeways and thus justify
>some kind of express transit options? You bet.
It doesn't mean people will ride it.
>New freeways and new subways are impossible dreams, at least for the time
>being. New light rails are at least ten years away.
Two years, the earliest.
>The easiest and the
>least costliest thing to do, I believe, is to put more, a lot more, express
>buses on the road.
No, those are pretty costly.
>Nice clean
And you expect MTA to provide this service?
>frequent buses in an efficient network of
>express lines using existing carpool lanes running all day long. You know,
>MTA was on the right track with the El Monte Busway and,
MTA has ceded the entire El Monte Busway over to Foothill Transit. If MTA wants
to run additional service, it must ask for Foothill's permission.
>more recently, when
>they started the 550 and expanded the 445 into all-day service.
Very bad examples.
The buses only look like they are deadheading. Most of the time, the only
people on those lines are the drivers.
>Look at the
>Hollywood Bowl Shuttles, it shows that the transit-optional will use public
>transit if it's efficient and available.
Hollywood Bowl runs those services because parking is undersupplied at the Bowl
itself. There are only half the number of parking spaces as there is Bowl
capacity. Those services run because of necessity.
C Y
"Herc Wad" <her...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> C Y wrote:
>
> >That's what I mean, bus stops on or near the freeways and transit centers
> >near every freeway interchange would allow efficient transfers and
maximum
> >flexibility.
>
> Please, PLEASE tell me you're not referring to bus pullouts. This is like
those
> stops on Foothill 480 or Golden Gate Transit 80 in the Bay Area where the
bus
> gets out at an off-ramp, serves a bus stop and gets back on a freeway.
These
> take forever to serve, and the bus would have to fight back into traffic.
That's EXACTLY what I meant, if it's not practical to build bus stops on the
freeway (like the ones on the 101), then get off and then get back on, like
the stop off Van Nuys exit of the 101, or even like the old 427 stop off
Reseda Bl of the 101. We want flexibility. In some cases when the traffic
is really congested, it's actually faster to get off to these stops and get
back on. It does not take forever to serve, and aren't all bus drivers
professionals? I'm not talking about getting off every ramp of the freeway,
just the busiest ones.
>
> >And I think there should be express lines running on every
> >freeway with limited stops, all day long. Right now, there's no express
> >service at all on the 405 south of LAX and north of Ventura Bl, the 605
> >north of Norwalk, and the 60 (the 482 is a local line, really, and the
> >Metrolink only runs five times a day, but the freeway is jammed all day
all
> >night long). Is there a lot of traffic on these freeways and thus
justify
> >some kind of express transit options? You bet.
>
> It doesn't mean people will ride it.
>
MTA does a very poor job educating and promoting its bus lines to the
transit-optional. Both LADOT and Foothill Transit had promotional "free
rides" at one time or another to get commuters to try the bus. Has MTA ever
done anything like it?
> >New freeways and new subways are impossible dreams, at least for the time
> >being. New light rails are at least ten years away.
>
> Two years, the earliest.
Yes, two years for one that's in construction. (The Pasadena Blue Line,
right?) I'm talking about ones that are still in the planning stages.
Let's take the just-approved Exporail, for example, should I expect it to be
running in 2003?
>
> >The easiest and the
> >least costliest thing to do, I believe, is to put more, a lot more,
express
> >buses on the road.
>
> No, those are pretty costly.
But it can be done by 2003, I bet.
>
> >Nice clean
>
> And you expect MTA to provide this service?
>
No. MTA has proved that it has no desire to serve the transit-optional.
I'm looking for LADOT, Foothill Transit, and other municipal operators to
get the job done.
> >frequent buses in an efficient network of
> >express lines using existing carpool lanes running all day long. You
know,
> >MTA was on the right track with the El Monte Busway and,
>
> MTA has ceded the entire El Monte Busway over to Foothill Transit. If MTA
wants
> to run additional service, it must ask for Foothill's permission.
>
(See my last comment)
> >more recently, when
> >they started the 550 and expanded the 445 into all-day service.
>
> Very bad examples.
>
> The buses only look like they are deadheading. Most of the time, the only
> people on those lines are the drivers.
MTA don't know how to run express lines. Have you checked the ridership on
the LADOT 438, 448, Torrance 1&2, Gardena 1, OCTA 701 and 721 -- all these
lines are using the Harbor Transitway with great success.
>
> >Look at the
> >Hollywood Bowl Shuttles, it shows that the transit-optional will use
public
> >transit if it's efficient and available.
>
> Hollywood Bowl runs those services because parking is undersupplied at the
Bowl
> itself. There are only half the number of parking spaces as there is Bowl
> capacity. Those services run because of necessity.
>
The Hollywood Bowl Shuttles run from Santa Monica, from Orange County, from
Arcadia, to name just a few places. If you're talking about the lack of
parking then all it really needed are the parking lot shuttles from
Hollywood and Barham. But people are catching the shuttles from Arcadia
because the service is efficient and convenient.
mike wills
yes- harbor transitway was free when it first opened
Kymberleigh Richards
wrote:
>
>"Herc Wad" <her...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:20010704070330...@ng-mr1.aol.com...
>> Carl Yuan wrote:
>>
>> >I mean,
>> >just look at the freeway traffic, that should give you some idea where
>> >people are going.
>>
>> That doesn't mean a bus will likely do well if it followed the same path.
>> Remember, express buses cannot pick up riders on the express portion.
>Busways
>> correct this problem.
>
>That's what I mean, bus stops on or near the freeways and transit centers
>near every freeway interchange would allow efficient transfers and maximum
>flexibility. And I think there should be express lines running on every
>freeway with limited stops, all day long. Right now, there's no express
>service at all on the 405 south of LAX and north of Ventura Bl, the 605
>north of Norwalk, and the 60 (the 482 is a local line, really, and the
>Metrolink only runs five times a day, but the freeway is jammed all day all
>night long). Is there a lot of traffic on these freeways and thus justify
>some kind of express transit options? You bet.
Why is it your acknowledgement of Chris' answer comes back to your
making the same assumption as originally?
>New freeways and new subways are impossible dreams, at least for the time
>being. New light rails are at least ten years away. The easiest and the
>least costliest thing to do, I believe, is to put more, a lot more, express
>buses on the road. Nice clean frequent buses in an efficient network of
>express lines using existing carpool lanes running all day long. You know,
>MTA was on the right track with the El Monte Busway and, more recently, when
>they started the 550 and expanded the 445 into all-day service. Look at the
>Hollywood Bowl Shuttles, it shows that the transit-optional will use public
>transit if it's efficient and available.
If the 550 and 445 are the right track, why aren't there more
passengers on them?
And why do you sound like a BRU supporter?
Kymberleigh Richards
wrote:
>I agree. I think MTA should restore all the express lines it cancelled and
>turn them over to LADOT.
If LADOT wanted to restore any of those express lines, all they have
to do is say so. The reality is that they won't (or they would have
by now).
Would you like me to send you Phil Aker's phone number so you can talk
to him about it?
Herc Wad
>"Herc Wad" <her...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:20010705144432...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
>> C Y wrote:
>>
>> >That's what I mean, bus stops on or near the freeways and transit centers
>> >near every freeway interchange would allow efficient transfers and
>maximum
>> >flexibility.
>>
>> Please, PLEASE tell me you're not referring to bus pullouts. This is like
>those
>> stops on Foothill 480 or Golden Gate Transit 80 in the Bay Area where the
>bus
>> gets out at an off-ramp, serves a bus stop and gets back on a freeway.
>These
>> take forever to serve, and the bus would have to fight back into traffic.
>
>That's EXACTLY what I meant, if it's not practical to build bus stops on the
>freeway (like the ones on the 101), then get off and then get back on, like
>the stop off Van Nuys exit of the 101, or even like the old 427 stop off
>Reseda Bl of the 101. We want flexibility. In some cases when the traffic
>is really congested, it's actually faster to get off to these stops and get
>back on. It does not take forever to serve, and aren't all bus drivers
>professionals? I'm not talking about getting off every ramp of the freeway,
>just the busiest ones.
Even getting off at just the busiest ones will slow the line down terribly.
There was talk about doing this on the 10 freeway between Vermont and Crenshaw,
but it doesn't look like it will happen. The buses are further delayed if they
have to get off the freeway, wait for a light cycle to change, and then get
back on the freeway and fight for a spot in congested traffic.
>> >And I think there should be express lines running on every
>> >freeway with limited stops, all day long. Right now, there's no express
>> >service at all on the 405 south of LAX and north of Ventura Bl, the 605
>> >north of Norwalk, and the 60 (the 482 is a local line, really, and the
>> >Metrolink only runs five times a day, but the freeway is jammed all day
>all
>> >night long). Is there a lot of traffic on these freeways and thus
>justify
>> >some kind of express transit options? You bet.
>>
>> It doesn't mean people will ride it.
>>
>
>MTA does a very poor job educating and promoting its bus lines to the
>transit-optional. Both LADOT and Foothill Transit had promotional "free
>rides" at one time or another to get commuters to try the bus. Has MTA ever
>done anything like it?
For longer periods than LADOT or Foothill. When MTA introduces a line, it keeps
the route free for up to a month. Foothill and LADOT do it for a week at most.
>> >New freeways and new subways are impossible dreams, at least for the time
>> >being. New light rails are at least ten years away.
>>
>> Two years, the earliest.
>
>Yes, two years for one that's in construction. (The Pasadena Blue Line,
>right?) I'm talking about ones that are still in the planning stages.
>Let's take the just-approved Exporail, for example, should I expect it to be
>running in 2003?
No. Wait 13 more years for it to get up to Robertson. In the meantime, there's
SMMBL 10. Santa Monica doubled service last year, and 10 now runs 7 days a
week.
I never had to ride during peak hours, but I know during off-peak hours, the
ride is very fast. I once made it from Union Station to Santa Monica & 4th in
30 minutes!
>>
>> >The easiest and the
>> >least costliest thing to do, I believe, is to put more, a lot more,
>express
>> >buses on the road.
>>
>> No, those are pretty costly.
>
>But it can be done by 2003, I bet.
Sure, and they'd be canceled by 2004 due to low ridership.
>>
>> >Nice clean
>>
>> And you expect MTA to provide this service?
>>
>
>No. MTA has proved that it has no desire to serve the transit-optional.
Sure it does. MTA proved that it could trick people into believing 300-series
limited-stop buses painted red is a Curitiba busway. L.A. fell for it hook,
line and sinker. Many transit optional riders on those two lines.
>I'm looking for LADOT, Foothill Transit, and other municipal operators to
>get the job done.
MTA can't make the munis do anything.
LADOT has made it clear that it is a traffic management agency, not a transit
agency. This is why LADOT will never run reverse commute service nor local
service, because those are services to improve rides for existing users. LADOT
only runs services that the engineers believe takes cars off the roads.
Commuter Express takes off cars during peak hours, while DASH is for the "pick
up stuff at the dry cleaners and grab a sandwich" trips. Community Connection
is the stuff LADOT wants to pawn off.
>> >frequent buses in an efficient network of
>> >express lines using existing carpool lanes running all day long. You
>know,
>> >MTA was on the right track with the El Monte Busway and,
>>
>> MTA has ceded the entire El Monte Busway over to Foothill Transit. If MTA
>wants
>> to run additional service, it must ask for Foothill's permission.
>>
>(See my last comment)
Foothill isn't interested in operating reverse commute service. Foothill only
wants one line to operate on the busways outside of rush hours, and that's 480.
>> >more recently, when
>> >they started the 550 and expanded the 445 into all-day service.
>>
>> Very bad examples.
>>
>> The buses only look like they are deadheading. Most of the time, the only
>> people on those lines are the drivers.
>
>MTA don't know how to run express lines.
MTA and predecessors have been doing it longer than most other agencies.
>Have you checked the ridership on
>the LADOT 438, 448, Torrance 1&2, Gardena 1, OCTA 701 and 721
Yes, and it's nothing to sing home about.
Torrance pulled out 1 from downtown during non-peak hours, and plans on doing
it with Line 2. Gardena doesn't touch its bus system (the schedules have not
changed in 7 years), but if it does, you can bet Line 1 will no longer serve
downtown. The buses are empty. LADOT 438 and 448 are decent for peak-hour
routes, but don't have prospects of expanding. Most OCTA express riders have
switched to Metrolink, and 701 and 721 are just in downtown for some reason.
>-- all these
>lines are using the Harbor Transitway with great success.
The Harbor Transitway and success do not belong in the same sentence. The
Harbor Transitway is L.A.'s biggest transit boondoggle. With $1 billion spent
on it, the buses are only carrying 3,000 passengers -- and these are people who
have always rode the buses before the Transitway opened.
>> >Look at the
>> >Hollywood Bowl Shuttles, it shows that the transit-optional will use
>public
>> >transit if it's efficient and available.
>>
>> Hollywood Bowl runs those services because parking is undersupplied at the
>Bowl
>> itself. There are only half the number of parking spaces as there is Bowl
>> capacity. Those services run because of necessity.
>>
>
>The Hollywood Bowl Shuttles run from Santa Monica, from Orange County, from
>Arcadia, to name just a few places. If you're talking about the lack of
>parking then all it really needed are the parking lot shuttles from
>Hollywood and Barham.
Those two lots only add 300 spaces to Bowl parking.
>But people are catching the shuttles from Arcadia
>because the service is efficient and convenient.
But that's totally different from a transit service. For one thing, the Bowl
subsidizes those buses. Second, if the Bowl had enough parking spaces, there
would be no shuttle buses.
C Y
I know very little about BRU and everybody elses' agenda here. All I care
about is that transit options should be available for me to use them. I
hate driving in L.A., especially when traffic is jammed, but I hate it even
more when I have no other options available.
C Y
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:15:20 GMT, "C Y" <carl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I agree. I think MTA should restore all the express lines it cancelled
and
> >turn them over to LADOT.
>
> If LADOT wanted to restore any of those express lines, all they have
> to do is say so. The reality is that they won't (or they would have
> by now).
>
> Would you like me to send you Phil Aker's phone number so you can talk
> to him about it?
>
>
I know Phil. If it's that simple, I'll give him a call right now.
Kymberleigh Richards
wrote:
>"Kymberleigh Richards" <kric...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3b452c27...@news.pacbell.net...
>> Would you like me to send you Phil Aker's phone number so you can talk
>> to him about it?
>
>I know Phil. If it's that simple, I'll give him a call right now.
Great. Let us all know how he waffles into non-committal mode when he
hears your idea.
m greene
No to the last two. Montreal opened its first lines in 1966,
and Mexico City opened its first route by 1969. There have been some
that have opened elsewhere, but I don't have that info immediately
handy.
Later
Michael T. Greene
C Y
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 15:18:10 GMT, "C Y" <carl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Kymberleigh Richards" <kric...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:3b452c27...@news.pacbell.net...
>
> >> Would you like me to send you Phil Aker's phone number so you can talk
> >> to him about it?
> >
> >I know Phil. If it's that simple, I'll give him a call right now.
>
> Great. Let us all know how he waffles into non-committal mode when he
> hears your idea.
>
>
It seems to me that public transit in L.A. is in the hands of politicians,
bureaucrats, and people like Ed Mann who gets paid, what, $200,000 a
year??!! And most of them are likely never had to use it.
charles hobbs
C Y wrote:
> "Kymberleigh Richards" <kric...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3b468074...@news.pacbell.net...
> > On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 15:18:10 GMT, "C Y" <carl...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Kymberleigh Richards" <kric...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > >news:3b452c27...@news.pacbell.net...
> >
> > >> Would you like me to send you Phil Aker's phone number so you can talk
> > >> to him about it?
> > >
> > >I know Phil. If it's that simple, I'll give him a call right now.
> >
> > Great. Let us all know how he waffles into non-committal mode when he
> > hears your idea.
> >
Do you think he'll at least extend #422 and #423 into the new Thousand Oaks
transit center at Rancho Road? Vista is going there for sure this Aug. (I drove
over
there about a week ago, and it is just about ready...)
>
> >
>
> It seems to me that public transit in L.A. is in the hands of politicians,
> bureaucrats, and people like Ed Mann who gets paid, what, $200,000 a
> year??!! And most of them are likely never had to use it.
I think it's softening up though, more into the hands of people who care a/o
know what they're doing (Snoble, Pam O'Connor at the MTA, Art Leahy
in Orange County, a few others). Slowly but surely.
Herc Wad
>Do you think he'll at least extend #422 and #423 into the new Thousand Oaks
>transit center at Rancho Road? Vista is going there for sure this Aug. (I
>drove
>over
>there about a week ago, and it is just about ready...)
What's around the transit center, and did Thousand Oaks Mall kick the buses off
the property? (Now the mall was a great transit center, that is for the buses
that stopped close to an entrance. The Park & Ride stop, the end of 422, is the
longest walk from a bus stop to a mall entrance anywhere in Southern
California.)
"I'm a proud man to be the nation based upon such wonderful values." -President
charles hobbs
Herc Wad wrote:
> Charles Hobbs wrote:
>
> >Do you think he'll at least extend #422 and #423 into the new Thousand Oaks
> >transit center at Rancho Road? Vista is going there for sure this Aug. (I
> >drove
> >over
> >there about a week ago, and it is just about ready...)
>
> What's around the transit center,
Nothing really, it's more of a park-and-ride than anything else.
(The freeway kind of cuts it off from everything else)
> and did Thousand Oaks Mall kick the buses off
> the property?
As far as I know, no.
> (Now the mall was a great transit center, that is for the buses
> that stopped close to an entrance. The Park & Ride stop, the end of 422, is the
> longest walk from a bus stop to a mall entrance anywhere in Southern
> California.)
For which LADOT should be ashamed...
Herc Wad
>[I wrote]
>> (Now the mall was a great transit center, that is for the buses
>> that stopped close to an entrance. The Park & Ride stop, the end of 422, is
>the
>> longest walk from a bus stop to a mall entrance anywhere in Southern
>> California.)
>
>For which LADOT should be ashamed...
Phil Aker said that LADOT wanted 422 at the mall entrance, but the mall
management did not want the LADOT clientele close to the mall. (They're mostly
maids, and they're pretty docile.)
charles hobbs
Herc Wad wrote:
> Charles Hobbs wrote:
>
> >[I wrote]
> >> (Now the mall was a great transit center, that is for the buses
> >> that stopped close to an entrance. The Park & Ride stop, the end of 422, is
> >the
> >> longest walk from a bus stop to a mall entrance anywhere in Southern
> >> California.)
> >
> >For which LADOT should be ashamed...
>
> Phil Aker said that LADOT wanted 422 at the mall entrance, but the mall
> management did not want the LADOT clientele close to the mall. (They're mostly
> maids, and they're pretty docile.)
Then the mall should be ashamed. Remember Buffalo?
John R Cambron
Merritt Mullen wrote:
>
> mike wills at mike...@math.ucsb.edu wrote on 7/2/01 8:28 PM:
>
> > rigge...@my-deja.com (rigg) wrote in message
> > news:<c23229fd.0107...@posting.google.com>...
> >> Washington D.C. started their extensive
> >> subway system in 1970. San Francisco
> >> got started recently(last 30 years)too.
> >>
> >> Which other cities have built subways
> >> "from scratch" in the last 30 years?
> >> Not just the US, but worldwide?
> >>
> > los angeles
> > baltimore [i think]
> > atlanta
> > newcastle, uk
>
> Yes, Baltimore is one.
But the single line that was built is a truncated and heavily
modified version of the original planed system.
Though not a "subway" Miami FL has a line using the same spics
and rolling stock as Baltimore, for that matter the cars for
both Baltimore and Miami were done on the same production run
under a joint contract.
--
======================================================================
NT Geek, MCP
Transit Geek
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/
Model Railroader HO N John R Cambron
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/sunbelt/ North Beach MD USA
Railroad Geek camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================