This has come on the tail end of a long process of study to solve the issues of capacity on this corridor, extending back to the rail line proposal and then Waverley Council's studies, submitted to TfNSW, of options including a detailed analysis of light rail. So, once TfNSW rejected the light rail option on (rather cooked-up) technical grounds, they've finally focussed on optimising the bus option and this is the final outcome. If they can crack the all-door boarding nut, it will be as good as it gets for the foreseeable future.swtt wrote:Rather interesting how the changes to the 333 (from 23/9/2018) weren't even pre announced in the SMH article that was previously posted here.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/tho ... 4zjnt.html
Some background and a photo of one-door boarding in its full glory:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-03/c ... on/9485454
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newsl ... 7a51104d07
I've dug out the final study to come out of Council, upon which TfNSW has drawn for its decision to adopt the B Line solution (with artics rather than deckers).
http://www.waverley.nsw.gov.au/__data/a ... erhoff.PDF
Fig. E1.1 on page ix shows that this should be a viable solution for the foreseeable future, but it needs a little more support from traffic prioritisation and all-door loading. The PB report has a number of deficiencies, one of which is that it identifies the issue of buses holding up each other and traffic by stopping at stops, but then suggests only the solution of having less stops (yeah, great for the customers in such a dense area) and completely ignores the issue of the time spent at each stop by the bus (dwell time) which is an equal if not more significant contributing issue. In this respect it's a blessing that they've chosen artics (even if without all-door loading) because deckers would really foul it up.
An interesting bit of historical background on the 333 from a decade ago:
https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au//bitstr ... Rookes.pdf
