Jump to content
Orion V

Los Angeles MTA

Recommended Posts

I think this was clearly a jab at the articulated buses, which if Art Leahy thinks he can run lines like the 720 on 40 foot buses, he is a moron in that respect. 40 foot buses would be a nightmare. Clearly there is a need for articulated buses if surrounding munis are buying them.

Art Leahy needs to be impeached for attempting to rid of all of the NABI 60-BRT artics and the 45C-Metro buses in favor for standard 40 foot buses. This C.E.O.is worst as Donald Sterling for making racial slurs on the audio which was presumed recorded by his ex gf V. Stiviano a few months ago.

Anyways, this C.E.O wants to do his things his own way and bring down his fellow employees and patrons who ride the buses and trains, frequently. Not only that, he already killed some of the Metro Rapid lines, by adding stops at certain intersections.

Why is Metro taking so long to repower some the Nabi lfw (7300-7514) and the (NFI) Not For Inferior C40LF buses (5300-5522)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Art Leahy needs to be impeached for attempting to rid of all of the NABI 60-BRT artics and the 45C-Metro buses in favor for standard 40 foot buses. This C.E.O.is worst as Donald Sterling for making racial slurs on the audio which was presumed recorded by his ex gf V. Stiviano a few months ago.

Anyways, this C.E.O wants to do his things his own way and bring down his fellow employees and patrons who ride the buses and trains, frequently. Not only that, he already killed some of the Metro Rapid lines, by adding stops at certain intersections.

Why is Metro taking so long to repower some the Nabi lfw (7300-7514) and the (NFI) Not For Inferior C40LF buses (5300-5522)?

You're not understanding the concept.

The real issue is with 45ft buses, and 60ft buses where frequency is less than 15 minutes. If you run a 40ft bus on a route that has less passengers, you are likely to need to increase the frequency. What he is actually wanting to do is provide more frequency, high quality, transit service.

When you put a 45ft bus on a low ridership line you end up with 60+ minute headways, because the standard for adding a bus is a bare minimum 30% standing load. Since a 45ft bus has more seats, it's easier to justify worse service.

Do the math, you'll see pretty quickly what the real intention is here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's basically a sop to the bus drivers union. If Metro replaced all the 45ft and 60ft buses with 40ft ones, they would have to hire a lot more bus drivers. The Metro Board would never approve something this stupid.

Should that befall, then heavy lines like the local lines 4, 40, 66, 204, 233 to name a fewwould be impacted with overcrowding on standard 40 foot buses, which the drivers won't let anyone else on the buses, but discharge passengers only. Same with the Rapid lines 720, 733, 754 and 761 that could cause problems of having to deal with overcrowding on regular buses.

You're not understanding the concept.

The real issue is with 45ft buses, and 60ft buses where frequency is less than 15 minutes. If you run a 40ft bus on a route that has less passengers, you are likely to need to increase the frequency. What he is actually wanting to do is provide more frequency, high quality, transit service.

When you put a 45ft bus on a low ridership line you end up with 60+ minute headways, because the standard for adding a bus is a bare minimum 30% standing load. Since a 45ft bus has more seats, it's easier to justify worse service.

Do the math, you'll see pretty quickly what the real intention is here.

I think you spoke too soon on your opinion. First of all, having to put a 45 foot and/or a 60 foot on a line that has less passenger boarding, welll that would be a waste a of time and fuel, when a bus over 40 foot should be DC operating on a busy line to relieve the overcrowding and keep the frequency afloat. It would be better is to put larger buses on heavier lines, while low ridership lines should use 30, 35 and 40 foot buses.

Yea... the oldest NABI 60BRT are from 2005 (9200~9299) so they are up for replacement around 2017. Which means contract has to be awarded in 2015.

Hmm... it probably could be the NFI 60ft. Xcelsior units as the next order to replace the current Nabi 60-BRT artics in the mid-2010s or late-2010s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Art Leahy needs to be impeached for attempting to rid of all of the NABI 60-BRT artics and the 45C-Metro buses in favor for standard 40 foot buses. This C.E.O.is worst as Donald Sterling for making racial slurs on the audio which was presumed recorded by his ex gf V. Stiviano a few months ago.

Anyways, this C.E.O wants to do his things his own way and bring down his fellow employees and patrons who ride the buses and trains, frequently. Not only that, he already killed some of the Metro Rapid lines, by adding stops at certain intersections.

Why is Metro taking so long to repower some the Nabi lfw (7300-7514) and the (NFI) Not For Inferior C40LF buses (5300-5522)?

You're not understanding the concept.

The real issue is with 45ft buses, and 60ft buses where frequency is less than 15 minutes. If you run a 40ft bus on a route that has less passengers, you are likely to need to increase the frequency. What he is actually wanting to do is provide more frequency, high quality, transit service.

When you put a 45ft bus on a low ridership line you end up with 60+ minute headways, because the standard for adding a bus is a bare minimum 30% standing load. Since a 45ft bus has more seats, it's easier to justify worse service.

Do the math, you'll see pretty quickly what the real intention is here.

I think that there can be a mixing of high-frequency and high-capacity service in LA. I think that there is something to be said for running smaller buses, but there are going to be lines that justify a larger bus all day, if not just at peak hours. The last time I rode LA Metro, I would have preferred to see both more space and more frequency.

Also, running higher frequency means running more buses, with more drivers, more mechanics, etc. If a route has demand for 120 feet of bus capacity, 2 60-foot artics are going to be cheaper than 3 40-foot buses.

There are several options for LA to consider. I think that there will be a place for artics in the LA Metro fleet, although it might not be as large as today.

P.S. Since I've checked the 45C off my to-do list, I'm all for getting rid of them. Somewhat awkward of a size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there can be a mixing of high-frequency and high-capacity service in LA. I think that there is something to be said for running smaller buses, but there are going to be lines that justify a larger bus all day, if not just at peak hours. The last time I rode LA Metro, I would have preferred to see both more space and more frequency.

Also, running higher frequency means running more buses, with more drivers, more mechanics, etc. If a route has demand for 120 feet of bus capacity, 2 60-foot artics are going to be cheaper than 3 40-foot buses.

There are several options for LA to consider. I think that there will be a place for artics in the LA Metro fleet, although it might not be as large as today.

P.S. Since I've checked the 45C off my to-do list, I'm all for getting rid of them. Somewhat awkward of a size.

You do have a point. Standard foot buses and 45-foot buses are used in heavy lines to help relieve the rest of the 60-foot articulated buses 5-15 mins apart to avoid from road and bus space hindrance that the Nabi 60-BRT artics frequently take up too much room and don't even put up to the bus stop all the way.

Obviously, you have ridden the Nabi 45-foot compo buses a lot and probably got tired of riding them. Now, you're looking forward to troll for the XN40 Xcelsior series. For me, I'm not tired of riding the Nabi 45C buses as I like those buses alot, especially with it's superior personality and badass powertran. Although, I'm looking forward to riding the XN40 Xcelsior series, but until few of the remaining 5600s enter revenue service, well that's going to have to wait, which I do not want to do. Some regular people are already getting tired of seeing the same buses everyday, like on lines 51, 52 and 352 (my local lines) which is occupied by the Nabi 40-foot LFWs and the NFI (Not For Inferior) C40LFs which I detest those buses a lot. I hope one day my local lines get occupied by the Nabi 45-foot compos and the XN40 Xcelsiors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has to be a balance. Frequent service is always a plus, but you can't clog the road with buses. In an ideal scenario, I'd say fill up the road with buses, but in reality the road space is filled with cars, on street parking, and old/outdated road design and geometry.

The 720 is now at 2 minute headways peak with 60 BRTs, at rush hour there is so many buses trying to stop Wilshire/Western that it often blocks Western Ave traffic.

I don't understand the hate towards the 45C when that is the best bus they have, including the new Xcelsiors. Also, keep in mind, like the artics, the 45Cs only make up a portion of the fleet. For some of the busier local lines like the 210 the 45Cs are great. I feel on many routes, the extra seats are welcome. In fact, on mixed 45C/Standard 40ft routes, the 40 footers feel cramped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Art Leahy needs to be impeached for attempting to rid of all of the NABI 60-BRT artics and the 45C-Metro buses in favor for standard 40 foot buses. This C.E.O.is worst as Donald Sterling for making racial slurs on the audio which was presumed recorded by his ex gf V. Stiviano a few months ago.

Anyways, this C.E.O wants to do his things his own way and bring down his fellow employees and patrons who ride the buses and trains, frequently. Not only that, he already killed some of the Metro Rapid lines, by adding stops at certain intersections. Why is Metro taking so long to repower some the Nabi lfw (7300-7514) and the (NFI) Not For Inferior C40LF buses (5300-5522)?

If you are aware, NABI did discountinue the 45C model, so likely they might get replaced by 40-foot buses in the future. As for your question regrading the repower, I heard that Metro is done repowering the 2001 NABI 40-LFWs (7300-7514) as of last month, so no more Doosan repower and I did also hear that they are no longer doing businuess with Doosan as well. So likely they rest of the remaining units will keep the Series 50G engines. As for the 2001 New Flyer C40LFs, likely the remaining units with Series 50G will keep them as well, though, they did repower a couple of them last year with Cummins engines that were taken out from the Neoplans. The C40LFs are soon going to start retiring though so I don't they repower them.

Should that befall, then heavy lines like the local lines 4, 40, 66, 204, 233 to name a fewwould be impacted with overcrowding on standard 40 foot buses, which the drivers won't let anyone else on the buses, but discharge passengers only. Same with the Rapid lines 720, 733, 754 and 761 that could cause problems of having to deal with overcrowding on regular buses. I think you spoke too soon on your opinion. First of all, having to put a 45 foot and/or a 60 foot on a line that has less passenger boarding, welll that would be a waste a of time and fuel, when a bus over 40 foot should be DC operating on a busy line to relieve the overcrowding and keep the frequency afloat. It would be better is to put larger buses on heavier lines, while low ridership lines should use 30, 35 and 40 foot buses. .

To be honest, I really don't think we need any 30-footers or even 35-footer buses in the Metro fleet other than the contractors. The fleet is fine having 40-footers, 45-footer, and 60-footers mainly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are aware, NABI did discountinue the 45C model, so likely they might get replaced by 40-foot buses in the future. As for your question regrading the repower, I heard that Metro is done repowering the 2001 NABI 40-LFWs (7300-7514) as of last month, so no more Doosan repower and I did also hear that they are no longer doing businuess with Doosan as well. So likely they rest of the remaining units will keep the Series 50G engines. As for the 2001 New Flyer C40LFs, likely the remaining units with Series 50G will keep them as well, though, they did repower a couple of them last year with Cummins engines that were taken out from the Neoplans. The C40LFs are soon going to start retiring though so I don't they repower them.

To be honest, I really don't think we need any 30-footers or even 35-footer buses in the Metro fleet other than the contractors. The fleet is fine having 40-footers, 45-footer, and 60-footers mainly.

Ah-durr, I already know NABI discontinued reproducing the Composite 45 foot series, as no other transit agencies from various cities in America wanted to buy them, with the exception of LA Metro. Well, that's it for the Doosan era in LACMTA property, as they no longer doing collaborations with each other anymore. Surely, this will make most bus fans and drivers happy that the Detroit Diesel Series 50G 8.5L engines will be retain on the NABI 40-foot LFWs.

I beg to differ, lines with the less passengers (71, 96, 102, 126, 154, 169, 201, 209, 211, 215, 220, 239, 254, 256, 258, 292, 603, 605, 607, 611, 612, 625, 645, 665, 685, 686 and 687) need to use 30ft, 35ft and standard 40-foot buses, so that way it will keep the high capacity buses on the business routes and help covered the increase of frequency.

There has to be a balance. Frequent service is always a plus, but you can't clog the road with buses. In an ideal scenario, I'd say fill up the road with buses, but in reality the road space is filled with cars, on street parking, and old/outdated road design and geometry.

The 720 is now at 2 minute headways peak with 60 BRTs, at rush hour there is so many buses trying to stop Wilshire/Western that it often blocks Western Ave traffic.

I don't understand the hate towards the 45C when that is the best bus they have, including the new Xcelsiors. Also, keep in mind, like the artics, the 45Cs only make up a portion of the fleet. For some of the busier local lines like the 210 the 45Cs are great. I feel on many routes, the extra seats are welcome. In fact, on mixed 45C/Standard 40ft routes, the 40 footers feel cramped.

Yup, it's true higher capacity buses can hinder intersections when there's a s***load of passengers to pick up and drop off, while another unit is right on it's tall. The Wilshire Rapid line can be a crazy*** line during the rush hour commute on weekdays and sometimes weekends, when there's special events occurring in DTLA, L.A. Live and beach communities.

And you're right about how some inferiors would hate the superior Nabi 45Cs and maybe the newly Xcelsiors (although, there have been reports of mechanical issues occurring with them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not understanding the concept.

The real issue is with 45ft buses, and 60ft buses where frequency is less than 15 minutes. If you run a 40ft bus on a route that has less passengers, you are likely to need to increase the frequency. What he is actually wanting to do is provide more frequency, high quality, transit service.

When you put a 45ft bus on a low ridership line you end up with 60+ minute headways, because the standard for adding a bus is a bare minimum 30% standing load. Since a 45ft bus has more seats, it's easier to justify worse service.

Do the math, you'll see pretty quickly what the real intention is here.

That theory doesn't really fly when Metro is mostly using 45ft and 60ft buses to relieve overcrowding - they are not using the big buses on low ridership line with 30 minute headways.

What you are saying is that Art wants to replace 3x 45ft bus headways with 4x 40ft bus. I think that is perhaps a good idea on weekends on lines like 33 where more frequency is a great idea. But it is impractical to add more frequency on most of Metro's heaviest ridership lines during weekdays. If you withdraw 45 or 60ft buses from 720 or 733 or 761, you can't actually add more 40ft buses to maintain capacity because of the inevitable bunching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're referencing routes that have high frequency, of course routes with 60ft buses won't go to 40ft.

I'm talking about lines that have 45ft buses that are mainly in suburban areas, like many south LA county lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news (besides the bickering over frequency of buses). Nabi 45C # 8405 is finally back in service, after going through major repairs on it's front side, when it sustained major damage from an accident with a garbage truck a year ago. This time, it's at it's original division 8 in Chatsworth, not at division 9 where it mostly operated on the Silver line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next bus auction for LACMTA is on June 21: http://www.kenporterauctions.com/vehicle_listing_temp.asp?auctionid=333&currpage=1&viewtotal=20&category=&sortby=lot_num&searchval=Buses

For this next bus auction, 43 C40HFs from LACMTA, 4 Eldorado Transmark from Glendale Beeline, 2 Cutaways (1995 Chevrolet GP and 1999 Ford E450, and a 1980 GMC RTS are being auctioned off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How realistic is it that the LA County bus agencies can have seamless fares (i.e. that a Culver City bus or a Santa Monica bus would have the same fares and fare rules as Metro)? It would be really nice if the schedules and routes could be better coordinated between agencies, but that seems to be a long shot as there are something like 30 different operators in the county.

Something I found strange is how LA County funds shuttle routes in unincorporated areas, but these are completely separate from LACMTA. Isn't this a case of the county having two redundant departments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How realistic is it that the LA County bus agencies can have seamless fares (i.e. that a Culver City bus or a Santa Monica bus would have the same fares and fare rules as Metro)? It would be really nice if the schedules and routes could be better coordinated between agencies, but that seems to be a long shot as there are something like 30 different operators in the county.

Something I found strange is how LA County funds shuttle routes in unincorporated areas, but these are completely separate from LACMTA. Isn't this a case of the county having two redundant departments?

If you're referring to LADOT, that's actually a city agency. But, I'm not sure which other agency in LA County would fund shuttle routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're referring to LADOT, that's actually a city agency. But, I'm not sure which other agency in LA County would fund shuttle routes.

East Los Angeles is still unincorporated and has El Sol, funded by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

Each city and unincorporated area gets money to operate a bus line. As far as I know, it's "use it or lose it", which is why you have systems like the Lawndale Beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've been seeing, for that to happen TAP must be universal first. I think you'll see this by 2016, there's talk about changing how transfers work in terms of when they're paid too. I think you'll start to see many fare changes in the next two years as well now that metro has changed theirs, and then a second or third round in 4-6 to consolidate fare structures as metro rail grows and it becomes obvious that things should work together better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Division 2 might have started getting XN40s because they have 3 of these units now. Someone spot red 2 XN40s running in service, 1 on Line 352 and the other one on Line 51.

I did hear that Division 1 and Division 2 were going to start getting the XN40s in the summer time several months back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Division 2 might have started getting XN40s because they have 3 of these units now. Someone spot red 2 XN40s running in service, 1 on Line 352 and the other one on Line 51.

I did hear that Division 1 and Division 2 were going start getting the XN40s in the summer time several months back.

They were Xcelsiors 5735 and 5736 that were in operation today. Seems like division 2 couldn't wait to release them to service on the first day of July (halfway of 2K14). I bet some some people are excited to see two new buses, rather than seeing the same buses too many times, which have bored them. In addition to the debuts of the Xcelsiors on lines 51, 52 and 352 this afternoon, there was a roadcall on limited 352, which was a NFI C40HF # 5135 which is near retirement.

I believe that division 18 may have sent the rest of the NFI C40HFs (5216-5222) to division 7 or retired them, since they haven't been spotted on certain lines owned by division 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Metro Express blue liveries fades into history this week as Metro repaints the final Blue Nabi 7060 into Poppy Orange.

I snagged a pic a few days ago at El Monte Station's lower level. Now I'm glad I did.

IMG_1726.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this hobby you always have to take photos of everything you can as it can be there one day and gone tomorrow.

Word, as the next day a serious accident could happen involving with the bus and that'll be it.

The Metro Express Livery was my favourite livery and it's a shame its going to be gone in the history books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word, as the next day a serious accident could happen involving with the bus and that'll be it.

The Metro Express Livery was my favourite livery and it's a shame its going to be gone in the history books.

Who knows if an accident could occur with this bus. You never know homie.

Surprisedly, we haven't checked for roadcalls and any battered buses back in service after getting repairs from accidents they were involved in. Also, which buses were involved in accidents this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows if an accident could occur with this bus. You never know homie.

Surprisedly, we haven't checked for roadcalls and any battered buses back in service after getting repairs from accidents they were involved in. Also, which buses were involved in accidents this year.

Well anything could happen, homie. Just last Friday one of our D60LF's got destroyed in a accident in a tunnel, so anything could happen brah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×