Every Hour, Near the Hour

I live a block away from a busy intersection on Balboa Blvd in the Valley. Balboa Blvd is an artery that services Nordhoff Blvd and Ventura Blvd - one being a major artery to California State University, Northridge; the other being a major, major artery alongside the 101 freeway, to many businesses/restaurants/grocery stores, and of course, Metro itself - rapid bus 750 and local buses 150/240.

My question is this: why does local bus 236/237 run every hour, near the hour? Near the hour is not of importance - why does it run once an hour?

I don't think I need to go into why I'm asking this question. The reason it is being asked should be plain enough.

If you miss the bus or the bus is late, it can prove to be quite a damper on one's day. Very often have I seen and passed by people multiple times within the hour only to see them still standing, waiting for the bus. Who has time to wait 45+ minutes for a bus to arrive? Just in case it wasn't common knowledge, nobody gets their kicks from being stranded.

Balboa isn't the only street to be affected by poor transportation planning. White Oak Ave, another street I lived very close to, is in the same situation. Winnetka Ave and De Soto Ave are also subject to this - there's no bus that even goes up Woodley Ave, at least not along its entire length.

With the exception of Reseda and Van Nuys Blvd, that I am personally experienced with, most streets heading in a north-south direction in the Valley are grossly under-serviced by Metro. (Sepulveda's local bus at least runs slightly consistently, but Metro recently stopped service of its Rapid line.) The east-west direction streets - although not up to par as they should be given the population and the need - are better serviced, but that's not saying much when your connecting bus heading north-south isn't arriving for a while.

Every-hour-service during the day. Does this make sense to anyone? Metro regularly toots its own horn about its frequent service, most of which takes place Downtown. Unfortunately not everyone works, lives, and plays there. And while the Orange, Red, Green, Gold, Purple and Blue Lines are awesome in their own right, with local service lacking, it is laughable to deliver oneself such praise.

Sadly, this is not news.

This is NOT okay.

Who OK'd this?

And how do we fix this?

Local Service Still to Improve

I am really excited at the thought of Metro expanding its rail service. The Orange and Red Lines have been really awesome in the years of their operation, and to be honest, the more the better.

However, the cost going towards the expansion of rail is depleting the function of local service. Let it be said, rail is awesome. But I feel that this is catering to the car culture even more.

Look, and cars are great, too. They definitely serve a purpose, especially since local service is virtually disappearing.

But if we're ever going to be reliable sans cars, or ever really achieve a 'car-optional' culture, local service needs a friggin' chance.

Back in March, The LA Times announced Metro's plans to cut local service in order to better transfer funds to the rail projects. As of June 26, these changes were implemented, which included the discontinuation of weekend lines, the shortening of lines in general, and some schedules have been changed to hourly. And yes, while others were extended or combined, the decrease of service is the most noticeable and is not the first change of its kind in recent months, nor will it be the last.

It almost seems like a moot point to even say anything about this because they are changes that will happen no matter what, in some capacity, at least. But I've always believed that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Hourly service does not cut it. Cutting lines doesn't cut it. Mediocre service doesn't cut it. Rail is awesome, but unless you have a car or are willing to pay exorbitant rates for a taxi, how exactly does one plan to get there?

If it's important enough (read: if it's bothering you enough), say something about it already.

And maybe, maybe in thirty years we'll see less backwards movement.

Photo via The Transit Coalition

On the Flyaway and Local Service

I've been back in Los Angeles/the Valley for a week, and it has been a great week. Catching up with friends, celebrating my birthday, and enjoying the warm weather has been an absolute blast.

Having landed at LAX, I took the convenient, reliable and affordably-priced Flyaway to Van Nuys, which is a hop, skip and a jump from where I live. But with two heavy rolling bags and, well, no car, it was a bit of a challenge in figuring how to get home. There were two options, sans car: (1) walk a couple of blocks and take the 163, then walk a bit more to my house; and (2) walk more than a couple of blocks and take the 165, then walk across the street to my house. The real challenge involved more of the idea of walking and then getting my luggage on the bus without pulling my arm out of its socket than actually figuring out how to do it.

Now maybe I over-dramatized it, but I thought it over enough to call my friend Adam and have him pick me up, which was a total relief because I love him and couldn't have been happier to see him. Also jet lag had hit me in the head something fierce and it was really time to be done with the day already.

What's funny is that I heard a lot of people on the Flyway bus calling people - roommates, parents, friends, etc. - to come pick them up from Van Nuys. I was thinking how nice it would be if there was a bus line that made some kind of perimeter route just North, South, East and West on Woodley to other connecting buses. Wouldn't it be a nice thought?

I know that the 169 goes East along Saticoy, South a portion to Sherman Way, then back North on Woodley to Saticoy, continuing East (and naturally in the opposite direction once at the end of the line), which is a great start. But what about a main line along Woodley and in conjunction with perhaps Lindley in some respect, connected by Parthenia and Burbank Blvd? Both North-Southbound streets don't have local buses running much on them, yet there is a major university on one and a service to LAX on the other, among other things such as residences and businesses. It's not an issue of frequency, but at this point an issue of being there at all. In doing so, Metro might be able to service points along major East-Westward streets, which would lead to better efficiency overall to its Orange and Red lines.

I realize I'm rambling. Please let me know whether or not this makes any sense. If you must know (rather, if it wasn't apparent enough already), I think about this kind of thing all the time.