Moderators: perthbus, Mr OC Benz
TP 1592 wrote:Would a bus route work from Byford to Rockingham?
If possible, this route (no. 564) would run from Byford Stn, R Soldiers rd, L Abernethy rd, R Thatcher rd, R Thatcher rd (It connects to Binshaw rd), L Larsen rd, R Briggs rd, L Thomas rd, L Gilmore ave to Kwinana Hub BS, R back onto Gilmore ave, L Thomas rd, L Rockingham rd, then the rest of the way (following the 920 route) to Rockingham Stn.
Times are: 1 hour all day on weekdays, 2 hours on weekends. Run is done by SCT.
Mr OC Benz wrote:I think you misunderstood it, the way I read it, the Barrack St bus lane will be there, but more defined as a bus priority right up and along Beaufort St.
Mr OC Benz wrote:
I think you misunderstood it, the way I read it, the Barrack St bus lane will be there, but more defined as a bus priority right up and along Beaufort St.
If you read the map on page 22 it says "Exsisting Bus Priority to be replaced with the William street bus priority lanes" to me that sounds like the bus priority on Barrack street means the bus lane and that will be replaced (ie lane to be removed) with new lanes on William street...
Mr OC Benz wrote:I will go back and read it, but I doubt they'll remove the Barrack St bus lane, their concept is to put more in, not reduce! Besides perhaps their plan is that Barrack St one will virtually turn into the Beaufort St one after crossing the bridge in the city anyway.
High Floor Bus wrote:Mr OC Benz wrote:
I think you misunderstood it, the way I read it, the Barrack St bus lane will be there, but more defined as a bus priority right up and along Beaufort St.
If you read the map on page 22 it says "Exsisting Bus Priority to be replaced with the William street bus priority lanes" to me that sounds like the bus priority on Barrack street means the bus lane and that will be replaced (ie lane to be removed) with new lanes on William street...
Thats how i look at it too!
Why take the bus lane away , its bad enough being full of buses taking forever to load pax , let alone sharing it with more cars stoping the your bus from getting on stand .would'nt be better to reInstate the 4th lane back and add capacity like it used to have years before.
Better still cut short some of the through services that go up barrack st at WSBS & from the Busport.
laptop15 wrote:What the hell is wrong with you? Isnt just best if you leave?
TP 1592 wrote:laptop15 wrote:What the hell is wrong with you? Isnt just best if you leave?
Arn't people allowed thier say in things anymore?
Cheers!
Leyland B21 wrote:Ok. As per the moderators have mentioned in the Thread regarding Slander and attacks, it seems this has become so personal of late hence why i am not contributing as much as i once did. Its a shame cos this site is so useful , educational and a place where people can have their input. the fact that the above posts mentionTP 1592 wrote:Arn't people allowed thier say in things anymore?
Cheers!
This is getting the point where its no longer inviting to people wanting to use this site. For christs sake, read the topic http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=67529
Take a step back for a moment, look at what your writing / posting, have some consideration for new users that do not wish to see childish behaviour and appreciate the fact you have a well formatted website/forum available for you interest / hobby as well as other users. Keep it inviting so if a new user checks the site out, they are not submitted to behavior of a low standard, slander, attacks on others, but a site where they can learn from and offer their input to an interest shared by many.
Now I am not a moderator but im speaking on behalf of those that use this site for the right reasons. Enough is enough. Dont take forgranted the work Users / Admins / Whatever put into this site. Its there for yours as well as the publics benefit!!! Dont Abuse It
busdriver12 wrote:laptop15 wrote:What the hell is wrong with you? Isnt just best if you leave?
Who made you boss of the wash?
Squiddy wrote:A few changes I would make:
Being able to terminate 111/4/5/6/150/158/160s at Canning Bridge rather than having them effectively duplicate train services up to Elizabeth Quay would be nice too from a cost perspective but may not appeal to passengers.
These runs were not withdrawn following the opening of the Mandurah line as the time savings from transferring to the rail just aren't worth the bother of enforcing (that's from the PTA), even in peak with 5min trains and a busy freeway (you can usually get a decent run up the freeway on the bus). When the trains run at 15mins, unless you have no waiting time between the bus and train, you put yourself well behind.Squiddy wrote:111/4/5/6/150/158/160s at Canning Bridge rather than having them effectively duplicate train services up to Elizabeth Quay would be nice too from a cost perspective but may not appeal to passengers.
Not to the route, but I think the frequency could utilise a bump. Have travelled on a number of 42s in the daytime that carryied seated loads from the city, with just an hourly frequency. Beggars belief an area so close to the city doesn't have more reasonable service. Guildford Rd. is coordinated to 15mins, but the majority of traffic was dropped off near the terminus.Bus Suggestions wrote:41...No change
42...No change
Merc1107 wrote:These runs were not withdrawn following the opening of the Mandurah line as the time savings from transferring to the rail just aren't worth the bother of enforcing (that's from the PTA), even in peak with 5min trains and a busy freeway (you can usually get a decent run up the freeway on the bus). When the trains run at 15mins, unless you have no waiting time between the bus and train, you put yourself well behind.Squiddy wrote:111/4/5/6/150/158/160s at Canning Bridge rather than having them effectively duplicate train services up to Elizabeth Quay would be nice too from a cost perspective but may not appeal to passengers.
I'm relatively pro-freeway bus, but I do believe there could be a case for reducing the number of services entering the city or making services to/from the city dependent on peak flows. The trouble is, you end up overcomplicating things with short-workings, alternate termini, potentially-different route numbers and so on. That just confuses everyone; the big example being how the 950 has grown exponentially by combining several different 'obscure' runs* into one service with good frequency. The 940 (now 115) did the same thing in its time by rationalising the spaghetti-tangle of runs through Hamilton Hill & Coolbelup.
* I don't mean once or twice a day "obscure," I mean obscure in the sense there are numerous runs taking different routes to the same destination, with different frequencies and times/days of operation
The 158 is another peculiar sort of run. You can't split it up and run two different runs via Canning Hwy., as you're then duplicating the 111 and 910, as well as introducing more complexity. At the same time, it really only caters for peak-directional traffic, as it services ritzy areas where car usage is likely to be quite high on weekends (doesn't help Sunday service is bi-hourly!).
Return to Discussion - Perth / WA
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest