Bus Routes - What would you do if you were in charge?

[insert_coin]

Well noted. About time too that the TP service was given a higher status/prominence - though all things considered you can't blame the airport for pushing their "connect" brand hard - it's lucrative.
We (all of us - come out designers) could develop a TP business/high profile plan to get regular services into the airport - something with a clear cut branding that will grow and stick over time.

[Mr OC Benz]

At a Public Meeting for Public Transport in Perth undertaken privately by some University, the biggest response from the public was about the lack of a decent and adequate public bus service to the Domestic and International Terminal. It is certainly a hot topic around the place which may of helped to influence plans.

[jonwil]

Given that there is clearly a demand for it, I dont see why they dont reinstate the direct route to the airport. Unless its "political" and Transperth/State Govt don't want to annoy the airport mob by competing too much with the shuttle services...

[laptop15]

Annoy them? That means getting rid of competition which is against what the government is striving for. Its still federal land, who cares what the airport says? Im pretty sure it was roadworks/no space for TP buses that TP stoped the 36 and 40 going there. Also note the 37 recently had a tt change (Sunday upgrade) so it may be a while before any other changes?

[route171]

Route 37 takes the most indirect route to the Domestic Airport..

[jonwil]

I got a question for all the route boffins and thinkers around here, if you were in charge and didn't have to consider politics, are there any routes, stops, services, or otherwise that you would completely delete? I dont mean delete and replace with something new, I mean delete because (in your opinion) they just cant be justified (and are likely only kept around for political reasons)

[route171]

^^Think route 205. Most if not all the area traversed is currently served by existing routes at a better frequency.

[insert_coin]

^^^can't argue with that - it's a full-on "lobbied" waste of money.

[jonwil]

ok, so who is the group lobbying to keep the 205 and why do they want it?

[route171]

The Liberal-National government are. When introduced in 2009 Riverton MLA Mike Nahan said "the new bus route would make a major difference to local people’s lives." The route was to compensate for the loss of pre-SSR route 155 which provided direct access to Booragoon Garden City to and from the Herald Avenue Senior Citizens Centre. It was to be trialled for 12 months but has been continuing to operate since its introduction. Routes 508, 509, 170, 501 already travel most of the area covered by the 205 at a better frequency.

[jonwil]

What I dont get is why people who dont use a bus route will still complain loudly if you try to take it away.

The only people who should have the right to complain about the removal of a bus route are those people who use it (and use it on a regular basis, not once in a blue moon) or people (e.g. local member) who are speaking up on behalf of the regular users of the service.

[tbc1983]

What I dont get is why people who dont use a bus route will still complain loudly if you try to take it away.

The former 529 rings a bell. So many people petitioned it (I'm guessing pensioners, mainly), but when the service was introduced as a trial, at least 3/4 of the petitioners never used it (from observation). Even the local J.A.T., rag here tried to rubbish the PTA and the local, private operator, saying non-sensical BS like how the drivers failed to pick up Armadale-bound passengers at Cockburn Central station, most probably because it was the Cockburn shops extension service; how the bus would stop for no reason at certain bus stops along the way as if to saboutage the service (more than likely just timed stops) and they (the paper) would always have a photograph of some people (usually with Tony Buti) waiting for the 529 outside the Armadale TAB, complaining about the service; well, they bloody would, since it turned off before that stop.

Each time the PTA were to give a hint about the service being withdrawn, the "loyal" 529 users would be up in arms saying that the PTA didn't give the bus route an enough chance and kept on blaming the Liberal government, blah, blah; it was the biggest load of horse turd I had ever seen and I think this happened about twice???

Finally it was withdrawn and overnight, the 519 was introduced. The word goes that the PTA originally wanted to introduce the 519 service from the start, but some F.P. o S. living locally wanted a bus service Co'burn so he/she could do their shopping, ra, ra, ra, hence the "trial" and I am inclined to believe that.

Let's face it, there is nothing there, along Forrest Rd, west of the Nicholson Rd intersection. It's quite a fast truck route and having a bus darting in and out of bus stops a long the way seems a bit dodgey, particularly since not all of the road is dual carriageway. I seriously commend the PTA for having an attempt at the 529 and I commend them even more for introducing the 519; it is a nice bus route that actually makes sense! Thank you!


Cheers!

[900 series]

What I dont get is why people who dont use a bus route will still complain loudly if you try to take it away.

Even the local J.A.T., rag here tried to rubbish the PTA and the local, private operator, saying non-sensical BS like how the drivers failed to pick up Armadale-bound passengers at Cockburn Central station, most probably because it was the Cockburn shops extension service; how the bus would stop for no reason at certain bus stops along the way as if to saboutage the service (more than likely just timed stops) and they (the paper) would always have a photograph of some people (usually with Tony Buti) waiting for the 529 outside the Armadale TAB, complaining about the service; well, they bloody would, since it turned off before that stop.

Off-topic a bit, but my experience shows that people commenting on news articles - and often the articles themselves - don't have a clue about public transport anyway. I've seen such gems this year as "Why don't they run a train from Cockburn to Greenwood!" and my personal favourite, an article that equated 2 zones in Perth with 2 Zones in Brisbane and 2 Sections in Adelaide.

Back on topic, I'd probably nominate the 35 for deletion, or at least a frequency trim. A three-kilometre route serving a total of 4 stops each way (including terminii)... I'll admit that I haven't been able to use it, but on paper it looks fairly toothless. How many people actually use it? And of those people, how many are boarding at the stops that aren't just one road-cross away from the 30/31?

And with the 529, I took a trip back in January expecting it to go away soon - suffice to say that no-one else got on for the entire Armadale to Cockburn Central stretch. Money straight down the drain. And the 205, don't get me started... It's nothing but an ad for removing politics from service planning in my opinion (the merits or lack thereof of this is a whole new debate that I won't get into here.) Better use the route kilometres somewhere where they're needed.

PS J.A.T??? sorry but I'm not brilliant with acronyms... could someone please explain...

[Mr OC Benz]

There are a number of people that use the 35 service. Wouldn't say it is frequently used, but that stretch of Mill Point Rd does get passengers. Basically runs on the basis like the 334/336/337/340 routes. They are short routes which are there to serve small areas cut out from the main line. I'd be expecting anywhere between 2-8 people during the day, and probably around 6-12 during peak periods, possibly more. One time there were about 22 people on the afternoon 340F!!!

[insert_coin]

Agent83 - brilliant synoptical analysis (wank...I know) - but well put and spot on!
The 519 is a great initiative and it's simply better than the 529. I bet the second it's withdrawn (if - and it shouldn't be) there'll be a full-scale radio talk-back war and a LOUD lobbying element to boot, as with the 155/205.

Cat - the 35 has some very "concentrated" patronage at times, but I agree....the "system" will show up what and where its deficiencies are and exactly what resources are needed, and when. There's a hell of a lot of density on that little stretch - you'd be surprised at times of the patronage, yet at other times it is way over-serviced! I can foresee a reduction at certain times on the cards, though the odd evening deviation (34) wouldn't hurt either.

jonwil - that's politics....there's very LITTLE, if any, understanding of anything in depth. The PTA actually do a bloody good job!

[900 series]

There are a number of people that use the 35 service. Wouldn't say it is frequently used, but that stretch of Mill Point Rd does get passengers. Basically runs on the basis like the 334/336/337/340 routes. They are short routes which are there to serve small areas cut out from the main line. I'd be expecting anywhere between 2-8 people during the day, and probably around 6-12 during peak periods, possibly more.

With passenger numbers like that, then yes the route itself can be kept, though I've still got my doubts about it being half-hourly on Saturday when more substantial routes get away with worse. (The way I see it, if it's underused then cut back to every hour, if it's well used then improve other services to match - maybe Saturday services on the 340 or Ellenbrook buses on a Sunday - other than the 955.) I guess a major redeeming feature is that the service can be run using just one, maybe two buses outside of peak hour, so the 'cost' side of the cost-benefit ratio is rather small.

[insert_coin]

It will more than likely be pruned back to a 60 minute service (weekends) - there's a lot of dead-running toward the Old Mill terminus. It'd be preferred to have a 35 "tacked" on to a terminating Busport service that would "run" and "return" and go back into regular service...why run empty to this terminus (at times?)
As for numbers...in the morning peak, those 3 pick-up stops will grab between them approximately 60+ passengers per hour - NOT insignificant by any measure. Other times....questionable.

[Mr OC Benz]

Only one bus is required to during the day to do the 35's and generally it is all put onto one shift or two. Since the changes are only fairly recent, I think it is unfair to judge the patronage and sustainability of the route for at least a few more months.

[tbc1983]

PS J.A.T??? sorry but I'm not brilliant with acronyms... could someone please explain...

Jive Ass Turkey.


Cheers!

[insert_coin]

Only one bus is required to during the day to do the 35's and generally it is all put onto one shift or two

NO, generally it is not. And neither does it have to be. The dead running is the issue. It doesn't matter which bus does the trip.
Anyway, after stating the bleeding obvious you've come to the conclusion that when you read a timetable 1+1=2. It doesn't always work that way, and there is IN FACT a fair amount of dead running to and from this extremely short journey - even from the busport itself. Any six year old could tell you how daft that is.
As I said, there are other more efficient rostering arrangements that can be achieved. Guess what when you look at a TT, what you see is NOT always the same bus going back and forth operating what you see on the paper!
I guess I know this coz I live in the area AND work in the area ALL day at times.

I think it is unfair to judge the patronage and sustainability of the route for at least a few more months

Noone's "judging" anything, they're commenting/discussing.

[Mr OC Benz]

I have seen some of the shifts which do 35's. It may not be all of them, but there are shifts which have drivers going back and fourth doing 35's. i.e. a Welshpool bus could be doing a 34T, 35F, 35T, 35F, 35T, Meal, 35F, 35T, 35F, 35T etc... then do a 34F or a 72F back to Cannington. I know what Swan Transit's characteristics are like and I doubt they'd send a bus direct from depot to do a 35 trip. Doesn't work like that and Swan would never do that! So far I have only seen Welshpool operating these 35's anyway.

Coming up soon from me are some new plans that I have got for some areas that could do with improvements and reviews.

[insert_coin]

FWIW, the Sunday shift I do involves an empty run from Canning Vale depot to Stirling to start a 98.

Say no more. Someone give me a positively valid reason as to why this is allowed to occur, on a route that encompasses the entire (inner"ish") metro area and is multi-operational by its very nature?

[route171]

Why can't Karrinyup or Malaga do that 98 run that BD12 mentioned?

[Mr OC Benz]

Not sure how the CircleRoute system fully functions, but I believe it'd be because that CircleRoute run is completed by Swan Transit. Thus ruling out Malaga doing that particular trip. Karrinyup are yet to adopt the CircleRoute. Hopefully it happens soon as it'll mean Swan Transit will be able to efficiently operate their CircleRoute operations with minimal dead running.

There are some PATH CircleRoute trips during the week where you have to run empty from Fremantle into the City or Oats St into the City to complete Morley bound routes.

[insert_coin]

Thanks for your effort busdriver12. I'd appreciate seeing the three trips that only run dead. Fair enough if I'm wrong here "from observation" - I'll wear that if I'm wrong.
It'll be interesting to see the 35 stat's you mentioned in more detail.

Is it impossible to have a service start and end near it's depot that runs a circlular-type service - particularly when it is multi-operational? Is that what you're implying or is that just "how it is"? It's hardly a positive outcome that a service "ends up" near home at the end of its run especially after running 'that far' dead to get there in the first place is it? Is the glass half full or empty?
AND, if that IS the case...I'll PMNOTR (and bet your's strongly while I'm at it) that I could eliminate such stupidity! It's not even that HARD....that's the irony. Remember what your dealing with here - NOT rocket science (cliche so well-loved).
This isn't engineering+!
Yes, "some" dead-running is unavoidable and at times is in fact desirable (duh) - peak flows/heavy loadings vs excessive operational costs coupled with a certainly prospective (lack thereof) of revenue generated for too minimal a return.

None of the above is regarding CSOs - which by nature will dictate a certain level of negative revenue for any operator - that's part and parcel (or it was with the Govt) of the business.

While we're at it, tell me, was it a smart move to eliminate Redcliffe depot?