Bravo! rapid bus plans downgraded to limited-stop service

I thought that the money for Bravo! was already secured and was coming from a Federal source, which meant it wasn't going to be cut and couldn't be used for anything else like regular bus service.

I never had faith OCTA could deliver this BRT project. Little by little, concessions were made and now it is nothing more than just limited service. But let's be honest here... the only people this will serve are the transit dependent and transit advocates. 99% of trips would require a transfer, and many of the intersecting streets have terrible headways, especially on the weekends. Who wants to take the Harbor Limited to Warner, then wait up to an hour for the 72? Or up to 80 minutes for the 79? Only with OCTA has this become acceptable. Plus the fact that the agency would prefer to redo the Orange Crush after already redoing it less than 10 years ago. Those idiots keep thinking that freeway widening is the only answer to mitigate congestion. "Keep paving! We will build ourselves out of traffic!"

Many trips already require a transfer. But what would you rather transfer to, a limited stop bus or another slow local?

Well that's my point. The fact that transfers are required for just about every trip is already enough to dissuade choice riders, and the transfer penalty given OCTA's headways is huge. And with 543 headways every 15-30 min (according to the Harbor factsheet), I'm going to take whichever (local or limited) comes first.

The bus is not going to pick you up at your house and take you to the doorstep of where you are going. Transfers are a fact of life on every transit system. Half of all the "choice riders" on Metrolink transfer to bus or rail after their train trip.

And that is exactly why only the transit dependent and transit advocates take OCTA. Believe me Spokker, I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to explain to you why I think OCTA will never attract choice riders until they start coordinating land use with transit along major corridors. The fact that Orange County is full of sprawling big box retail and cookie cutter auto oriented communities will never make it conducive to transit unless they start developing up key corridors and coordinating it with transit. We need built up corridors... such as Ballston in Arlington, VA, Wilshire Blvd, Hollywood Blvd, Copenhagen's five finger plan.

Of course transfers are required on every transit system, but as I stated earlier, the transfer penalty for OCTA is huge. 80 min headways on the 79? Who in their right minds wants to do that when their trip length may only be 15 minutes by car? And I see OCTA's service detereorating even more as Kempton becomes head of the agency. The only thing Caltrans knows how to do is pave more roads. At least Art instituted owl service and brought in some new buses. Look for Kempton to cut service even more while simultaneously funding large highway projects (look at what he did to San Jose).

And I'm going to assume that the "half of Metrolink choice riders" statistic comes from the fact that the majority of riders go into Union Station, where there are dozens of transit connections, including a subway, a light rail line, and a FlyAway. All of these connections run frequently and throughout the day, unlike OCTA.

I think it's best to postpone implementation of Bravo! until OCTA can find a way to fund a full BRT service, not the scaled back limited stop service they have planned for 2010.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit#Main_features) BRT offers the following features. We shouldn't have to settle for anything less.

Main features

These bus systems can come in a variety of forms, from dedicated busways that have their own rights-of-way (e.g., the Ottawa Transitway or the Pittsburgh MLK East Busway) to bus services that utilize HOV lanes and dedicated freeway lanes (e.g., Honolulu's CityExpress) to limited stop buses on pre-existing routes.

An ideal bus rapid transit service would be expected to include most of the following features:

* Bus only, grade-separated (or at-grade exclusive) right-of-way : The main feature of a BRT system is having dedicated bus lanes which operate separate from all other traffic modes. This allows buses to operate at a very high level of reliability since only professional motorists are allowed on the busway. A side benefit of this are lower construction costs since busways can be engineered to tighter standards and still remain safe compared to a roadway open to non-professional drivers.
o Such a right of way may be elevated; on rare occasions, the right of way may be a modified rail right of way.
o A bus street or transit mall can be created in an urban center by dedicating all lanes of a city street to the exclusive use of buses.
o Low-cost infrastructure elements that can increase the speed and reliability of bus service include bus turnouts, bus boarding islands, and curb realignments.
* Comprehensive coverage : In addition to using dedicated busways, BRT's can also take advantage of existing roadways in cities that already have a comprehensive road network for private automobiles. Service can be made more time efficient and reliable than a standard bus system by taking advantage of bus priority methods.
* Serves a diverse market with high-frequency all day service : A BRT network with comprehensive coverage can serve a diverse market (all income ranges) by moving people from their current location to their destination with high frequency and reliability while maintaining a high level of customer experience. As with any transit system, if any of these benefits are taken out of the equation, or do not provide better service than other modes of transit, the network will not be able to serve as diverse a market or offer high-frequency service without heavy subsidy.
* Bus priority / bus lanes : Preferential treatment of buses at intersections can involve the extension of green time or actuation of the green light at signalized intersections upon detection of an approaching bus. Intersection priority can be particularly helpful when implemented in conjunction with bus lanes or streets, because general-purpose traffic does not intervene between buses and traffic signals.
* Vehicles with tram-like characteristics

Recent technological developments such as bi-articulated buses and guided buses have benefited the set up of BRT systems. The main developments are:

*
o Improved riding quality (guided bus, electronic drivetrain control smoothing the operation),
o Increased capacity (bi-articulated or double decker),
o Reduced operating costs (hybrid electric power train).
* A specific image with a brand name : (Viva, Max, TransMilenio...) and specific stations with state of the art features, automatic vending machines...
* Off-bus fare collection : Conventional on board fare collection slows the boarding process, particularly when a variety of fares are collected for different destinations and/or classes of passengers. An alternative would be the collection of fares upon entering an enclosed bus station or shelter area prior to bus arrivals (similar to fare collection at a kiosk prior to entering a subway system). This system would allow passengers to board through all doors of a stopped bus.

* Level boarding : Many BRT systems also use low floor buses (or high level platforms with high floor buses) to speed up passenger boardings and enhance accessibility.
* Stations : High quality BRT systems often feature significant investment in enclosed stations which may incorporate attractive sliding glass doors, staffed ticket booths & information booths, and other more standard features listed above. This style of station is seen in Bogota's TransMilenio and in some other cities in Latin America that have adopted BRT systems, while most North American systems tend to use open platform stops, or shelter-style platform stops.

I dont think the Bravo will be sucessful in the OC at this point, especially in this economy. The 29, 43, 57, 60, 64, and other lines have always been busy and should have some kind of limited service ON TOP OF THE LOCAL ROUTE. Look at the MTA Line 66 local /366 timetable for example. Why didn't OCTA experiment with limited/rapid service sooner ? If the Bravo Idea ever goes scrap, they need to put limited stop service on the 57, 29, 43, 60, and 64 & perhaps some other routes. Some of these lines are too long. Seriously, it shouldnt take 2 hours to get from Huntington Beach to La Habra/Brea without other faster alternatives. I always see a hybrid bus on the 53.

The service isnt already effecient enough. I find it absurd for the drivers to constant have to wait for everybody to pay before moving the bus. Soon as u know it, the bus will already be 5-15 minutes late. This wastes my time & puts others at great risk of missing bus connections. Traffic intersection lights take too long to turn green. Motorists always cutting off the buses. These newer buses are incredibly slow and unreliable. Why are the wheelchair ramps in the back while other transit agencies are able to put them in the front ? Schedule Reliability is an issue with them and OCTA needs to do something to improve that as well. I always see a hybrid bus 5422 on the 53. I recently rode it. The ride was incredible quiet, smooth, similar to Long Beach Transit hybrids. Why didnt OCTA get those instead.

I remember back in the day when LACMTA was running the 130, 275, 470 in the Orange County. If OCTA service is cut to a point where there isnt any buses, what are the odds of MTA restoring that service back into the OC ? It wouldnt exactly be an OCTA bus anymore, but at least we will still have service in the county.