RtS: IMAX at GardenWalk, Anaheim
 

Rank the Swank - Theater and Movies


Overall Swank Rank

IMAX at GardenWalk, Anaheim
GardenWalk Anaheim
321 W. Katella Ave
Anaheim, CA
July 19, 2008
http://themovieexperience.com/tme-gwalk.shtml


The Lowdown
Not exactly the IMAX I expected

__________________________________________________

The Scene
I've been to IMAX twice before at the Spectrum in Irvine. There, the screen is all-engulfing, and the seats are beyond-stadium, right up near the screen. This place is not like that at all.

The theater itself is medium sized and the layout is just like a regular stadium seating theater. The screen is definitely larger than usual - floor to ceiling. However, you are no closer to it than you normally would be, and there is no wrap-around to speak of.

We saw The Dark Knight there and I have to say, the print was DIRTY. There were very large specs of dirt distracting from nearly every scene. It was as if they were trying to emulate old-timey filmmaking. No hairs or lint but these large dots were inexcusable.

Sound was excellent, probably the only thing it's got going for it.

The dinky website sells tickets without service charges but it's still $13.50 for an evening show. NOT WORTH IT. I really couldn't say it was any better than a regular showing. I'd definitely say I wished I saw it in a digital theater for less money instead...or waited to see it in real IMAX in Irvine.

Don't go there expecting to be blown away.

I was thinking of posting a RTS as well. I agree with everything CP said, and I'll add the GardenWalk parking structure is a total nightmare.

Maybe this is the "new style" of IMAX, maybe it's the theater. Regardless, I'm going to go see it again at the Spectrum IMAX this week.

You forgot to mention the rather laborious pre-show lecture from the theater manager telling us how awesome his theater is.

Were you tempted to find the manager after the show to tell him he was wrong?

The so-called IMAX at the Bridge in West L.A. is the same. Just a regular theater with a large screen.

The "regular" theater I saw Dark Knight at (the Village in Westwood) has a larger screen than that "IMAX" screen.

The action sequences in Dark Knight were filmed in the IMAX format, so I'd like to see the film in real IMAX ... but I'm not driving to Irvine just for that.

As I haven't seen the film "normal", I can't truly judge, but it did not seem to me that the sequences were extra-special in any way. Next time something like this comes out, it's Spectrum fo sho.

I don't think I could have tolerated IMAX for 150+ minutes.

It didn't bother me, and I'm pretty prone to motion sickness. Dunno if it'd have been worse in a "proper" IMAX theater.

I don't have issues with motion sickness during IMAX presentation (I don't have issues with it anywhere) but rather I just don't like sitting so close to such a big screen.

When I'm by myself I'm the guy sitting in the last row of the theater. IMAX is like sitting in the front row. Just not my taste and it quickly wears thin with me. I unexpectedly watched Kung Fu Panda on IMAX and that was a bit too long for my preferences.

Slow nature photography is generally ok with me but for real movies I'm not a fan of IMAX.

Heheh, I'm so the opposite. I've been known to sit in the front row of the Cinerama Dome so the screen will literally wrap around me and extend past the edges of my peripheral vision on both sides.

The only time I went to IMAX (for feature films), we saw Beauty and the Beast (and then stuck around and "stole" a viewing of LotR). The only way I could tolerate it was by being in just about the back row. I enjoyed the viewings, but the immersion from that perspective was plenty for me.

I, too, was rather dissapointed. Besides the smallish screen a dirt on the film, the parking structure is a joke. The entrance is a nightmare with cars going two directions at once, crossing, ect. And it sounds like after 3 hours of validated parking you then have to pay.

Complete joke. Exiting is worse. When we left they it looked like they had 1 booth at each entrance open, with 2 ways to each booth that met right before the booth. People had to cooperate and use the "zipper effect" to get to the booth. It took nearly 15 minutes to get out of there. Validated parking is 4 hours. Be sure to account for exit time though.

Yes, what is that all about? How do you pay at the kiosk not knowing how long it will take to get to your car, then to the booth??

There is a pre-payment kiosk too?

Must have missed that. But you'd still have to sit in the exit line for everyone else who is paying at the booth.

Odd, we were out of there immediately, no waiting.

It's not just the crowd getting out that is the problem, which has been hit and miss because it is so new and is worse on Fri. and Sat. nights. But it's the layout as well. The trafic flow going in and going out is not well split and tends to meet head-on.

Yes, there are some type of Kiosks, but I have no idea how they work.

Okay, I'm just a little more than perturbed....you say the theater there is open? Since when? I stayed at the Motel6 {oh my gosh, a pretty basic hotel, did the job, I would stay there again, but, very very basic...} and I asked if they had a number for the theater and they said it wasn't open yet. We were there July 28th, I think. We could have walked from the hotel. Er, motel. So we went to DTD.

But, we did think about going in to walk around and check it out, to find the theater, but, we saw that you had to pay to park and we knew we weren't going that moment to see it so we just turned around. I can't believe they make you pay. I understand that it could be taken advantage of being so close to Disneyland but they need to work something out. Don't know what, though, but they should.

So, if we'd gone to see it there, would we have had the choice not to see it in iMax?

Thank you guys for your review, as always, this is the place to learn everything I need to know. :D

The design creates to many bottle necks, with what looks to be head-on meetings at each exit. The Spectrum structure has numerous entrances/exits but there is only one place that the flow meets head on. Of course the Spectrum is free parking and doesn't have take your ticket/pay for parking impeding its flow.


I'm not sure when it opened, but it was open on the 28th. Maybe they didn't get the memo?

It wasn't what we think of as a true IMAX screen. It was just a huge screen, but not in a domed shape like at the Spectrum or Balboa Park.

Wow, that's sucky.

As for paying for parking, if you eat or see a movie you can get validated. I think it was 3 hours for restaurant validation 5 for a movie. We got there early so we could do dinner and a movie and we only paid $2 for parking, which I'm fine with.

Don't drive!

Seriously, OCTA was recently rated the best bus company in the country. Route 43 (Harbor Blvd.) and Route 50 (Katella) both run 24 hours a day and a day pass is only three bucks, less than a gallon of gas.

Keep the car parked once in a while and let someone else do the driving.

Awesome, so when the movie lets out at 1AM, I can get a ride down Katella and get dropped off 2 miles from my house at 2 in the morning! Sign me up!

Bring a bike. Each bus has space for two bikes.

Or use the bus during the day. Just think of the money you could save.

It really isn't as bad as it sounds. It's not perfect, but in a world of $4.00+ gas, it really can help the pocket book.

I didn't mind paying for parking. Getting out was just irritating. Then again I was exhausted and amped up at 1:30am. The red lights on Harbor were irritating too. ;)

No bus routes to my place. Not that I would ride a bike 2 miles from the nearest bus stop (after spending what, close to an hour getting home) at 1am.

No bus routes to anywhere I want to go either. I looked into the train to go up to Anaheim for hockey games - they don't run at conducive times, nor is it that much cheaper than driving.

The bus line may "be the best company in the country" (do you have a source for that?) but their routes and times leave a lot to be desired.

Like I said, it's not perfect, but if you live in Orange County, near a major intersection, and want to travel to or near another major intersection in Orange County, there's a good chance you'll be able to do it by bus for much less than the cost of driving.

Quote? It's been a couple years, but I'll see if I can find it.

My last apartment was walking/biking distance from an OCTA park and ride, with work being located next to an OCTA maintenance facility. My 30 minute driving commute would have taken 2 hours by bus each way.

Currently I live around the corner from OCTA corporate headquarters, working in the same location. Taking the bus would mean 90 minutes instead of 20 driving.

I can't sacrifice 30% of my waking life to my commute.

For shorter trips around home it might be more feasible, but those usually occur on weekends when I'd prefer not to have a bus-enforced curfew dictating my night.

I don't deny that the bus can be a good option, but there are still way too many caveats (gotta be near a main intersection, it's gotta be between certain hours, etc) to be really useful to anyone who's off a main route. I have hope that it will get better, but it's not there yet.

You're only awake 10 hours per day?

A 90 minute bus-ride twice per day is 3 hours. 3 hours is 30% of 10 hours.

Methinks there is a typo somewhere (I do not doubt your math skills).

Eh, I didn't really do the math, just threw a number out.

Plus, do the 9 hours I spend at work REALLY count as "waking life"?

OK, I'll give you that

OCTA has four lines that run 24/7. 60,57,50 and 43. Stay out all night if you want.

I know... the system is far from perfect, but things are getting better. You should have seen the system back in the early 80's. Some of the lines didn't run on weekends, or only ran every two hours until 6:00pm. I remember once being stranded on Warner Ave. on a Sunday for nearly three hours.

But consider Harbor Blvd. The 43 line runs 24/7 every 10 minutes during peak hours. If you're going from say, Newport Beach to Disneyland, there's no reason to drive.

I found this link from the Public Transportation Association that has awards for 2007. In 2006 LA county placed just below NY.

OCTA won in 2005 for

Which of those lines will get me to the Honda Center from the Irvine Spectrum by 7pm on a week night (leaving Irvine around 6:15pm) and be able to get me home by 10:15pm or so (leaving around 9:45)? And which of those lines will be able to run the same route on a Sunday, delivering me to the Honda Center by 4:45pm and getting me home at 8:30pm (after leaving around 8pm).

Which of those lines won't take 2.5 hours to get to and from Disneyland and require me to walk or ride my bike several miles late at night (which I will not do)?

Yeah, late night buses just leave you walking/biking late at night. No thanks.

No, that's "Waking Dead". At least watching some of the workers here, it tough to tell that that aren't sleeping....:D

Also, walking to and from the bus stop is not an option for me as I have a foot problem right now (Mortin's Neurama). I would have to walk about half a mile (not bad normally though).

I will defend OOCA on the OCTA issue.

While it is not a perfect system, I think the mass transit system in OC has made large advances in recent years. So much of the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area was lacking in mass transit since the middle of the last decade. This is not something that is just going to appear overnight. While the system is far from perfect, I think the progress to date has been phenominal.

I will not disagree with that. And if someone has the time (either luxury or has to make the time out of necessity) to use it, it will get you from A to B.

I looked in to many options to get to work, and to/from Honda Center. Sadly, they all involved getting on a bus or train several miles from my home. If it was the train I could leave my car there. But I don't think it's all that safe to walk/bike several miles up Sand Canyon or Alton alone at 10:30pm. ;)

Mass transit systems are not designed to take every person from exactly where they are to exactly where they want to go. They are designed to take existing, heavily traveled, travel routes. Also taken into consideration is the likelihood of the people on that route to abandon their cars for mass transit (for example, while you might see a lot of traffic between Beverly Hills and Century City, I doubt there are a lot of people giving up their Mercedes and BMWs to hop on a bus).

Also, newer, outlying areas are usually not the first to be served by mass transit.

Finally, route schedules are based on demand. For example, the OCTA recently opened a new bus line between Brea and Irvine (they even put a door hanger on my house in Brea to let me know about it). However, the line only runs during "peek" hours. Since I tend to (well, almost always) work late, it wasn't an option for me as the last departure from the location that I would use was around 5:30.

Which is exactly the point. It does a fine job for what it's designed for. My needs are not met by OCTA, the current routes and schedules available offer me very little benefit. Any savings in gas are far outweighed by the time factor for me.

It doesn't serve everyone, it's not meant to serve everyone, and it currently does not meet the needs for the great majority of residents in the county. It very successfully meets the needs they are trying to meet and I applaud them for that, but "Just take the bus!" is impractical advice for almost everyone in the county.

Not as much "impractical" as "inconvenient". Your 90 minute commute would not be impractical. Impractical possibly for the late night return from the movies perhaps if there are no buses running near one's house at that hour.

There are plenty of bus lines which I could use to get between home and work, regardless of the hour. They just aren't convenient for me.

And I did not get too far into in my previous post (in response to a different poster), but I doubt that anyone who lives in a metropolitan part of Orange County that would require a multiple-mile bike ride. Maybe from the train station to the house, but that is what the bus is for - transfer from the train to the bus.

Then KB, I propose you tell me how to get to/from the destinations in my previous post, at the times that I'd need to travel.

I'm not sure I understand your difference between "impractical" and "inconvenient." Yes, I COULD take a bus, but the ~3 hours I would lose from y day would result in a significant negative impact to my life, reducing the amount of time I have to accomplish anything outside of work and putting undue strain on personal relationships. That is BOTH impractical and inconvenient.

"Impractical" does not mean "impossible". It means that it offers an unworkable solution. Cutting my out-of-work free time in half is not a workable solution.

If you place unrealistic limitations (45 minutes from Irvine to the Pond in the afternoon) on your travel itinerary, then you will probably never be able to use mass transit. But this falls under the "inconvenient" category. That you want to be home by a certain time is absolutely a convenience issue.

And I must have your address incorrect as I am unable to locate it on Google Maps. (I have your street name as the name of a bird and three digits in the number).

I was open to taking the metro, but the times it runs is not feasible (get there late, leave early) if at all (I believe the last train south was before the game would even remotely end).

Do you have the 2nd word? If so, add an S to the end.

This stemmed from "take the bus, leave your car at home" thrown out there as the "DUH" solution. When I was doing this research, the closest bus stop to my home was several miles away. Then it was close to a 2.5 hour bus ride to my office, longer to the Honda Center.

What I (and I think GD) am trying to convey, is that "take the bus" that OCAdventure is presenting as the DUH solution is anything but. If it was practical, even with a mild inconvenience it would probably be done.

See, this is what ends up ticking me off in these conversations. Out of one side of your mouth you say, "Well, it's not MEANT for everybody, cut it some slack," but when someone tries to explain, "Well, then, I'm among those it's not meant for," then comes the accusation that you're just being stubborn for the sake of "convenience".

I want to add, that what you say are "unrealistic limitations" is what actual life allows. If I am taking the bus to save money, I'm certainly not going to spend $10+ 3 times a week on food. I'm going to eat dinner beforehand, like I do now. Also, can't very well ask my boss to leave early so I can catch the bus to the games. Leaving early is reserved for important games that start at 5pm. ;)

For Sunday games, real life dictates that I leave an hour before the game, I'm usually doing homework (which requires an internet connection) up until I leave.

The message that I was responding to WAS an unrealistic expectation - one is in definite danger of not even being able to DRIVE that segment (45 minutes from Irvine to Anaheim during the peak of afternoon drive time).

To make the complaint that mass transit "will never meet my needs because it can't match my car drive time" is an unreasonable expectation. THAT is what I was reading.

I get both sides of the public transportation. As a teen, I used to get around that way. Took an hour just to get downtown {in a car, just about ten minutes} then another 1/2 hour + to get anywhere else.

My sister had no car for years and had to spend hours every day to get to work. This includes going through parts of town where it was pretty dangerous. Once the bus was shot at {that I remember} and the bus driver ran and left the passengers on it!! She had to keep riding, though, to get to work. She read a lot of books. :D

So, I see both sides. Really needing to use it, however you can. But, the inconvenience of the times can sometimes be something you can't get over. I know it wouldn't work for me to get to work and also get my son to school.

I read somewhere that the bus routes to the more suburb areas are being cut down as they feel that it is more cost effective in the busier bustling areas? That sucks because not everyone who lives out here has a car, like the college student or teen. We have to walk quite a way to get to the bus stop and it isn't very frequent.

That $3 pass day pass. I was told it was $3 if we bought it from the front desk but more if we bought it from the machine. I thought it was a good deal but the Hubster didn't want to wait for it. In the end, the cost we were going to pay we put towards a parking pass so it worked out.

If I add an "s" to the second word, I do find you. But ironically, it then says you live at the singular version of the second word (no "s") AND it removes the first two vowels of that second word.

Google is funny!

Those are my needs, which I added in a separate reply. That drive is doable in 45 minutes, I did it all last season. I also hope that you aren't suggesting I walk/bike ride home at 10:30 or 11 at night (which is when I presume a bus would get me back to Irvine). It may be Irvine but it's still not a smart idea safety wise.

It's quite obvious that the OCTA cannot meet my needs. That's ok. Again, I'll restate that "take the bus" is not the DUH answer that was implied earlier in this thread and that is what I am trying to explain. It's not a matter of convenience. It's reality. I'd also like to know where the prompter of this debate disappeared to - he didn't answer my questions either.

Ya, odd. When I turned on utilities I had to use the shorthand version of the 2nd word or they couldn't find the address. It's still to new.

Ok, so what is a reasonable expectation? Twice the time? Including the amount of time it takes to get to the stop/station, or any transfers needed?

Every time I've had occasion to compare the drive time to the time it would take for public transit, it's ALWAYS been more than twice the time it would take to drive. Like GD said, we lived down the street from a Park and Ride, and right now we live a short bike ride from a train stop. I have always wished to use public transit and check it every once in a while, hoping things have improved. And as I said, it's always, always more than twice the time it would take to drive. That is impractical, unreasonable, inconvenient and so annoying there is no way you'd get to your destination happy.

One thing I have found in commuting by public transit (MTA not OC) is that the additional time spent commuting - and it does add significant time to mt commute - is actually productive time for me. When I drive I drive and maybe listen to NPR. When I commute I have time to read, write in my journal, catch up on email correspondence, reads web pages, or even just nap. I spend more time on the move, but I've transformed that time into something rathe positive for me. Sure the days I drive I get to work and home quicker, but it's more exhausting to me and causes me to add the commute time to my work day, so it feels like I'm working longer.

But that's personal annectdote,

Wow, I knew getting out of the Garden Walk parking structure was inconvienant, but I didn't know it was this bad!

;)

I don't know if you guys have considered this but you should take the bus!

So I guess what one has to do is turn "commute" into some other productivity. My biking commute is very short - about 12 minutes - but because I have to get there and get changed, I have to leave about 30 min before work. I've made my peace with that, as there are plenty of bonuses that balance it out - fresh air, exercise, lovely neighborhood, save on gas and car maintenance, doing the good environmental thing, etc.

My experience is much the same as Euro's.

If I drive, most days it takes me about 40-50 minutes each way.
When I use public transportation (walk 1 mile to BART, two BART trains, then Emeryville free shuttle) it takes 90 minutes each way (and can be closer to 2 hours in the evening when connections are iffier).

Most of the time I still prefer public transportation for the reasons Chris gives. I can read (it had been years since I actually read through a full newspaper before I started riding BART), I can get a movie review written, if I feel like it I can bring my portable DVD player and watch a movie. Many times it is actually a respite.

Not dealing with either the distractions of home or the obligations of work (though if I have something pressing from work I can actually work on it). In a weird way it has become my "alone time."

But when it sucks, it really sucks. Way more than bad traffic driving home sucks. At least in bad traffic I am never crammed into the armpit of some smelly drunk on an overcrowded train with an AC that can't keep up with the communal stink of 200 people in the car.

But as said above all the factors have to be weighed and I don't really fault anybody who decides that the time multiple isn't worth it.

See, that's a ratio I'd start to consider, that's less than a 300% increase in commute time for you. In my situation, it would mean about a 500% increase.

And then there's the other issue, which is not having a car during the day. I could pack my lunch and not have to deal with getting food, but it would preclude me from my chosen forms of lunch time exercise, rollerblading and soccer, both of which require a drive to the park.

It's frustrating because I've looked for solutions to the shortcomings. I really would like to leave the car at home if I could. But the system just isn't in place yet to fit my needs, or even to come close enough to fitting my needs that I could easily adjust my needs to fit.

I for one am extremely grateful that there is a public transit system in Orange County.

You wouldn't want to see me behind the wheel. Trust me on this. It would be a disaster.

If it works for you, awesome. And I have no doubt that there is a large segment of the population for whom it's an excellent option. There must be, judging from the lines of people filing onto the buses that get in my way on my drive to work. But it's lightyears from being the solution to all of our transportation needs.

It's far from perfect, but it can be made better.

Imagine this scenario. Every major street in Orange County would have two bus routes that would run the entire length of the street.

Local buses would run every five minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with stops on every block.

Express buses would have exclusive use of the left most lane, with stations in the middle of the streets, on islands (similar to the Blue Line in L.A.) and would have stops every two miles or so (fewer stops = faster service). These could easily be upgraded to light rail at some point in the future.

Both would have the ability to pre-empt traffic signals, only stopping for passengers.

I believe a system like this could work for "most" OC residents.

I never denied that it could, in the future. It's not there now, so "Just take the bus!" is not practical advice for most people living in the present.

If you're going to have that many busses running, why not just install omnimovers or moving sidewalks (someone has to implement Heinlein's dream) throughout the county?

Okay, I just read your post a little closer.

Pipe dream. "Easily upgraded to light rail"? Hahahah, you slay me.

The mass transit system in Southern California is improving steadily. It will be bounds better than it currently is, I have no doubt. But even cities that have had public transit integrated in from the beginning don't operate in any way remotely close to what you describe. There is no way that Southern California, of all places, is going to somehow stumble upon the magic formula that will allow public works to do what countless other cities, far more suited for it, have failed to accomplish.

The cost would be incredibly high, plus OC is anti-rail (google Center Line).

All they need to get started is more buses and money to build center divider stations.

Wow, The Original OC Adventure must have done something to really cheese you off.

Ease up man - he (or she) is just trying to be optimistic.

And a fairy godmother to make that money appear. And another to widen streets like Bristol or Fairview that are already only 2 lanes in key stretches that would be nightmares if you dedicate one of those lanes to buses.

Sure, if we could wave a wand and start everything from scratch, a working system could be created. But we're talking about an enormously sprawling expanse of streets that has, over the span of a century or so, been designed without public transit in mind. There is no "easily" about any step of what you describe. Every little piece requires decades-long modification work, no matter how much money you throw at it. All of which would be delayed even further as resources will need to be diverted during the process to create temporary solutions for the real problems that exist today.

L.A. is doing it right. Start small, create a few hubs that serve a specific need (getting over the hill from the valley, getting east and west through the city, etc.). By focusing on solving a local transportation headache you ensure that 1) you'll have ridership as you will be meeting their needs and 2) demonstrate the viability of the system to create support for further funding. Once you've got a few local hubs running and efficient, then you can start expanding from there, connecting hubs and getting people not near those hubs more efficient ways of getting to them.

Why not?

They could do it in three steps.

1. Reserve the left-most lane for buses, using center island platforms for stations. This would require doors placed on the left side of buses. Shouldn't be too hard to do.

2. Replace the fossil fuel buses with electric trolley buses.

3. Gradually lay track and replace the trolley buses with street cars similar to those used by the city of Portland Oregon.

It might take a couple decades, but in the end Orange County would be far better off.

The big problem with people living in Southern California is they lack vision.

Why can't we be the first in transit?

I'm still waiting for Kevy or OC Adventure to give me a workable bus route to suit my needs listed above. Or have they conceded that "just take the bus" isn't a workable answer for everyone and that the current OC bus system does not currently work for everyone's needs and some of us can't leave the car at home.

While they're at it, my other needs are to get from around the Irvine Spectrum to 92688 by 8am and to leave around 5pm.

And Kevy, I know I'm frustrated that OC Adventure (and you) seem to think that we're all just unwilling to sacrifice to their just take the bus comment from earlier.

I never said it was perfect. It doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for a large percentage of the people who currently drive solo.

It appears that you live in an area that has poor service. Hopefully that will improve in time.

So not only does your simple 3 step plan require investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, for each step, it's investment in things that would be designed to be made obsolete by the next step?

Put doors on the left sides of buses. But then get rid of those buses you've just spent about $100 million* on modifying in favor a different, more expensive kind of bus. But then dump those buses for another, even MORE expensive type of vehicle.

Seems to me it would make a lot more sense to start with a plan that's designed to make use of the money spent rather than throw money down the drain in pursuit of some master plan that's liable to have the plug pulled at any point down the line. L.A.'s model of building small, achievable chunks that, on their own address a need and can be later networked together to addresses more general needs strikes me as a far more reasonable solution that neither necessitates huge spending on temporary solutions that will be scrapped, nor leaves things in a lurch should there be a change in course/funding/popularity a decade or two down the road.



*OCTA's got about 1000 buses if my research is correct. If fixing a couple dents on GC's car door costs $5000, I think $10K is a lowball estimate for making that kind of modification to a bus.

The whole process might take decades to complete. By the time Step 2 was completed, the buses purchased for Step 1 would be ready for the junk yard.

It requires large amounts of overlap, redundant spending, and it still is a plan that will require years and years of infrastructure work with no short term benefit, only inconvenience as traffic on every major street across the county is interrupted.

Whereas starting with local trouble spots and popular destination spots solves problems immediately while simultaneously laying the groundwork for future improvements.

Every city that has a viable public transit system operates with a hub or multiple hubs. It's more efficient, allows for significant sharing of infrastructure, and ensures that the most pressing needs are served first. If being first in transit is the goal, it would serve us well to learn from the ones that do it best right now.

Have YOU looked? It ain't no skin off my back WTF you do. Because I already gave you the basic answer: your expectations are unrealistic for a public transit system.

The OC Mass Transit System is not bad. It has a long way to go. It's not the answer for everyone.

A: Take the bus!

B: It doesn't really serve my purposes

A: Sure it does!

B: No, really, it doesn't. It's a fine system for what it is, but it doesn't fit my needs

A: Sure it does!

B: No, there are very practical reasons that it does not

C: The systems not for everyone, stop saying it sucks!

B: I'm not saying it sucks, I'm saying it's not for everyone. We agree.

C: You're just being lazy for your own convenience!

B: Huh? I thought you just admitted that it's not for everyone.

A: In the future it's going to be perfect! Driven by magical fairies and everything!

B: Err, okay, but it doesn't work for me now.

C: It's not for everybody!!!



That about sum it up?

Yes, I thought I stated I looked at the bus for work and both the bus and train for hockey and I could not locate anything that met my needs. My needs are what they are. My expectations are to get from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time. A 300% increase is not reasonable. Going from 45 to 90 minutes could be, if my needs fit into that schedule. As I said, I can't leave work early to catch the bus to go to games. I also don't have 2.5 hours to take the bus to work and from work.

What is frustrating is the constant harping that mine (and GDs) expectations are unrealistic and then in another post saying the OCTA is not for everyone.

And public mojo for GD. Yes, it does.

It is what it is. It has come a very long way. It doesn't meet everyone's needs yet and may never. I loved the public transportation in San Francisco.

Now that we're all agreed that "it is good, it is better, it is not for everybody, and you should just take the damn bus and stop whining, and why don't you just look it up yourself" I'm interested in the how it could improve discussion.

I'm still caught up on the "a bus every 5 minutes in both directions on every major street" thing but omnimovers being excessive (and that wasn't a serious suggestion, just my way of saying that the proposed number of busses would be ung-wdly expensive). Assuming that they can average 35MPH when they have stop every block that's 25 busses just for the length of Harbor Blvd. Running even at 3 a.m. on a Monday morning.

And if done on every major street that is a lot of busses interrupting car traffic with their light overrides. Even in the Bay Area they're only considering such things on a couple very main thoroughfares. Market Street in San Fransisco, International Boulevard in the East Bay. And even in ultra-hippie friend-of-public-transit Berkeley they can't agree it is a good idea.

Even as much as we relied upon public transportation as teens {and my sis for a total of almost 2 decades} it wasn't perfect. We had to wait long periods, we had to walk many blocks at times to reach our bus stop, even if we were just dropped off from another bus to continue on another route. But, if it is all you have, it is all you have. Or, if it can work for you, great.

Timing, safety, convenience, all of that add up.

Even the school bus system sucks for us. To pick up my son, who doesn't start school until about 12:15, it would pick him up about 10:50.

One more to add:

D: This is the most popular Rank the Swank thread ever. It's the Dark Knight of Rank the Swank threads!

It wouldn't start out anywhere near every five minutes. Probably closer to ten to 15 minutes between buses.

Each articulated bus would probably take 20 to 25 cars off the road. That should more than make up for all the signal pre-emptions.

Cool!