neilrex wrote:Bus services to Bondi Beach used to be simple, and have progressively become more and more complicated.
If the L82/333 is considered a straight swap then what else is there?
* The reintroduction of the 381 number in lieu of using 380 for the same type of service?
* The removal of the Fletcher St deviation from 380? At that time 382 services (which never did the deviation) were essentially eliminated to compensate.
* The introduction of L82? It replaced daytime 382 services
* Terminus tinkering? eg L82 to Watsons Bay from 2002, later 380 to Watsons Bay? But weird at the same time terminuses like South Bondi have been removed
In light of recent service changes, I've compared the current timetable to the new between Bondi Beach and Bondi Junction. Actual capacity numbers for the regular routes may vary according to the bus used:
I'd be interested if there is an increase or decrease in overall buses in the Bondi area including Old & New South Head Rd Corridors, 360 changes + M40.
Also, the capacity might be higher now, but how many people actually use the 381/2 from Beach to Junction (vice versa)?
I think most people are basically sheep in behaviour and would have been awaiting a 333 or 380 only. Consolidation into the 333/380 would probably be an exercise in utilising that capacity even better.
In this corridor, I see there being 2 main issues to solve:
1. Peak travel
2. Summer beach travel
For the first, there aren't many options to reduce the demand from cars in the area (you'll see what this means in a second) so road space reallocation is probably the best bet. Even a T2 or T3 lane would probably be helpful IF enforced properly.
For the second option, however, I wonder if anyone has considered placing a surcharge on visitor parking, taxi and uber trips to the Bondi area during the peak summer season? It seems to me that this corridor is semi-unique in that it is a fairly self contained destination at the end of a congested road, a lot of the traffic is likely to be beach visitors, and if we took measures like this it could act as a de-facto congestion charge for the area?
I'm not saying this is the answer, or even a workable solution, but it's an idea I haven't seen mentioned so I wanted to throw it out there.
tonyp wrote:
Actually need to constrict car traffic, not make more room for it. A bus lane each way along Bondi Rd is the trick!
Wouldn't disagree one little bit. It should be a 24 hour bus lane.
The almond flavoured, latte sipping locals and the vocal business owners will think that Bondi Road was constructed for them to PARK their cars on! Just have a look at how difficult it has been for the RMS to get a few clearways through......with self entitled business owners thinking the road is for their customers to park on....
Absolutely, but thinking about the political impact of removing parking on Bondi Rd on the weekends vs putting a surcharge on ‘visitors’ to reduce car traffic, a surcharge seems like a more politically possible second best option.
Bondi Rd suffers from not having any scope for creating parking at the rear of properties which is the solution along many Sydney strips, but I note that the biggest retailer from which people might need to take away goods in bulk, Kemenys, has at least a small carpark at its rear. I think this is one of those strips where people have to expect to visit by bus or on foot. You don't expect to be able to pull up in front of a shop in Kings Cross, the centre of Parramatta, Pitt St Sydney etc. Should Bondi Rd be any different?
There's also an underground council carpark (formerly an open air carpark) accessible from Wellington Street. That's probably not quite adequate, but use the 20 year vacant block (former Shell service station -- give the developer what they want: more storeys in exchange for 60 or 80 public parking spaces) in that section and something smaller closer to Denham Street and you have enough spaces for the commercial centre.
hornetfig wrote:There's also an underground council carpark (formerly an open air carpark) accessible from Wellington Street. That's probably not quite adequate, but use the 20 year vacant block (former Shell service station -- give the developer what they want: more storeys in exchange for 60 or 80 public parking spaces) in that section and something smaller closer to Denham Street and you have enough spaces for the commercial centre.
If the state government had its act together, it could package this and transit lanes together with the project. They certainly haven't put as much effort into it as the northern beaches corridor.
It's interesting that they were running Atlanteans (and presumably before them the old deckers) along a route that is now claimed to be non-compliant for double deckers. Probably trying to worm their way out of the previous statements that everything in Sydney was going to be B line deckers and artics were going, after realising that this corridor was one best operated by artics.
Everybody seemed to prefer to be downstairs in this bus, which they would if they were only going a short distance. The bus driver's very 70s presentation is a sight to behold. I wonder if bell-bottom pants were part of the uniform then?
grog wrote:Absolutely, but thinking about the political impact of removing parking on Bondi Rd on the weekends vs putting a surcharge on ‘visitors’ to reduce car traffic, a surcharge seems like a more politically possible second best option.
If that's too daunting, to find out what happens when sensible choices are made in regard to parking v's clearways, instigate a trial on King st through Newtown.
tonyp wrote:It's interesting that they were running Atlanteans (and presumably before them the old deckers) along a route that is now claimed to be non-compliant for double deckers.
Is it? City Sightseeing/BigBus/whatever did it no problem.
Now that the new services are up and running (333 as close as 2 min headways I notice, better than the 3 min advertised), it's interesting to look back at what the Bondi Rd tramline was moving, for which Keenan has quite a bit of statistical detail in his "Eastern Lines" book.
Basically, the tram journey time was the same between Bondi Jct and Campbell Pde ( a bit under 15 min) but with twice as many stops as the 333, not all of them compulsory though. Surveys taken of the pm peak in 1939 (two hours from 1615 to 1815) show trams about every 1 to 4 minutes between Bondi Jct and Bondi Beach, almost all of them 250-passenger sets. A number of trams terminated at Denham St and typical loads were in the order of about 150 to over 200 people. Deducting the short-workings to Denham St, I'd estimate that something up to 7,000 passengers per hour were being carried on the trams in one direction between Bondi Jct and Bondi Beach.
I was there checking it out earlier around mid-morning but didn't take any pictures. It didn't seem that interesting imo, just more 333s and artic buses. The most exciting part was actually using it rather than seeing it otherwise it's more or less the same.
tonyp wrote:I would like to see a train line though.
Interesting that you say that.
From the document in the link
"Do Nothing – continue open access for motor vehicles until congestion becomes unmanageable"
And who's fault was it in the first place for not wanting to extend the rail line to Bondi/Bondi Beach?
Local actors, artists and other sundry pretentious pull artists who wanted THEIR locality to themselves even though it it's bigger than them and belongs to everyone.
One mistake was wanting to put the terminus right on the beach.
It would have been better locating it around Glenayr Ave, Six Ways.
1. Would better suit more local residents (who should be the primary consideration)
2. Would facilitate any future extensions (as per Bradfield's original concepts)
3. Would benefit local businesses along Hall St, with passing tourists to/from the beach. It is not an unreasonable distance to walk (compare with Cronulla or Manly)
4. Less engineering problems relating to water tables.
Preserving fire service history @ The Museum of Fire.
