Bondi corridor study

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion
neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by neilrex »

A route doesn't serve "a corridor" if people living anyway along the "corridor" can't actually access it.
mandonov
Posts: 1712
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by mandonov »

I'd love to see some recent data on how the transfer rebate has affected the amount of people willing to change at BJI. Perhaps if interchanging has increased to a certain extent more 380 services could terminate at BJI, or be turned into extra 381's.

Eliminating the transfer penalty now means the only reason for not interchanging to get to the city is laziness.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by boronia »

If TfNSW was serious about getting people to change, they could simply reduce the number of through services.

Or have none at all, and make the BJI-city services separate. :twisted:
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
Fleet Lists
Administrator
Posts: 23803
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: The Shire

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by Fleet Lists »

mandonov wrote:Eliminating the transfer penalty now means the only reason for not interchanging to get to the city is laziness.
I dont agree = there is still a certain amount of inconvenience involved.
Living in the Shire.
mandonov
Posts: 1712
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by mandonov »

Fleet Lists wrote: I dont agree = there is still a certain amount of inconvenience involved.
Maybe if your destination is on Elizabeth Street, but otherwise there's no financial penalty and and there's also a speed advantage. It may be inconvenient to go down some escalators, but that's laziness in my opinion.
mandonov
Posts: 1712
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by mandonov »

boronia wrote:If TfNSW was serious about getting people to change, they could simply reduce the number of through services.

Or have none at all, and make the BJI-city services separate. :twisted:
Agree. I would terminate the 380 at BJI, and just leave the 333 as the sole through route to cater for major tourist flows and the Oxford Street corridor. M40 and 440 can cater to the all stops passengers.
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by simonl »

I wouldn't. Then people would bitch about the stops not served by the 333 and that they don't want to use 378 and interchange or walk to an express stop.

Here's what I would do:
- Extend the 333 to Dover Heights, all trips
- remove the 380 Dover Heights terminus
- 382 to only serve 333 stops and run many more trips in the AM Peak.
- All PM peak Bondi Junction starters to be 333s.
- increase frequency on the 333 and probably reduce it on the 380.

And at least you could put in a transit lane, both directions in the peaks. The report suggested this was the second most unsatisfactory move but the most unsatisfactory thing would be maintaining the status quo.
Frosty
Posts: 1828
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:16 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by Frosty »

I have different suggestion the m40 be extended to Bondi Beach and the 381 be abolished along with the pointless diversion via Denham St. Also remember Oxford St has the 352 services as far Crown & Oxford. I would extend half of 333 off-peak trips to Dover Hts.

Maybe like a peak hour bus lanes in both direction and weekend 7am-7pm.
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by simonl »

Well, but only if the M40 stopped only at 333 stops. Preferably it should use Elizabeth St and the Cahill. You could do both things.

There certainly shouldn't be the third slightly different stopping pattern along there, I can agree with that part.
mandonov
Posts: 1712
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by mandonov »

simonl wrote:I wouldn't. Then people would bitch about the stops not served by the 333 and that they don't want to use 378 and interchange or walk to an express stop.
I've no sympathy for them They would still have direct access to the CBD via the M40 and 440, only they'd get left off on the other side of the CBD if they aren't willing to walk or change.

The frequency of the 333 and the non-333 routes is such that it isn't that big a deal.

I like your other suggestions.
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by simonl »

Realpolitick.

EDIT: You may not have sympathy for them but no politician wants to say to a grey army of voters that they don't have sympathy for their desire for shorter walking distances.
User avatar
rogf24
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by rogf24 »

The 333 already has pretty closely spaced stops anyway, it's spacing is pretty close the new stop spacing on Anzac Parade especially between Kingsford and Alison Rd, with that in mind, I would say it might be more ideal to run all Oxford Street buses on the 333 spacing pattern.
mandonov
Posts: 1712
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by mandonov »

Especially along Bondi Road where some regular stops are only 150m apart and some don't even have a corresponding stop in the opposite direction.

That's a big point that they're making with the M41 improvements. They're attempting to standardise around the 400m stop spacing, even going as far as 600 metres in certain parts, and also making sure bus stops are in pairs.
User avatar
1whoknows
Posts: 3983
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by 1whoknows »

How is the STA coping with its new competition between Bondi Junction and the beach??
"Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out"
David Horowitz.
In Transit
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by In Transit »

1whoknows wrote:How is the STA coping with its new competition between Bondi Junction and the beach??
The competition didn't last!
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by simonl »

boronia wrote:I think there are some "left turn from lane 2" intersections heading into Parramatta along the GWH. How are the lights configured at these?

If there is a specific left turn arrow, the pedestrian light should be at red and pedestrians should not be crossing. Perhaps any visibility concerns could be sorted by having the stop line for buses a few metres back from the corner.
Went through the Pitt St intersection the other day. There is a "B" traffic light phase, so given that would be red when the left turn arrow is green and that red applies to any vehicle in the bus lane. So I have to retract my "defect" comment above.
In Transit wrote:
1whoknows wrote:How is the STA coping with its new competition between Bondi Junction and the beach??
The competition didn't last!
Typical 1wk! The private sector can be inept too. The only difference is that when the private sector is inept, they stop doing the same things.
Frosty
Posts: 1828
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:16 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by Frosty »

Maybe the reason the private shuttle bus operator failed was simply it couldn't be competitive as STA is already pretty well known, their services cover wide area and pretty good service coverage. Something like the private shuttle bus operator could work along east-west routes in the Eastern Suburbs and Inner West along the routes of the 348 and 370 since east-west links are quite poor, high passenger numbers & STA low overall service quality on its routes it operates.
mandonov
Posts: 1712
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by mandonov »

I've found some quite glaring inaccuracies in this report.

First of all they claim that in the peak there is currently 17 buses an hour timetabled along the Bondi Road corridor. Having a look at the current timetables for the 333, 380, 381 & 382 I found that there's actually 34 buses scheduled between 7:30 and 8:30 am, ie. the highest peak.

Secondly, they claim this gives the corridor a potential capacity of 1,360 passengers/hr per direction. They've made the assumption that every bus carries 80 people, because I guess they saw that as the middle ground between a standard and bendy bus. In fact the current capacity of the corridor (based on 60 passengers per standard bus, and 100 for a bendy) is actually 2,520pp/h, assuming only the 333 uses artics in the peak. This is almost double their projected capacity for their first "solution" which amounts to just the use of PTIPS at intersections.

They're really shooting themselves in the foot, because the easiest thing they can do right now to lobby for more capacity is to work with the government to cull some stops, and to ask them to use higher capacity buses. They could even put some money forward to purchase higher capacity buses instead of wasting it on these reports where one of the suggestions is a friggin monorail!
Stu
Posts: 4344
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by Stu »

^ 333 is artic all day, seven days p/week - first trip until last trip

I'm not sure when this will be implemented, hopefully soon. The project involving Camperdown to Rozelle was advertised in December 2015, still waiting to see the implementation.
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/pro ... 016-03.pdf
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by tonyp »

mandonov wrote:I've found some quite glaring inaccuracies in this report.

First of all they claim that in the peak there is currently 17 buses an hour timetabled along the Bondi Road corridor. Having a look at the current timetables for the 333, 380, 381 & 382 I found that there's actually 34 buses scheduled between 7:30 and 8:30 am, ie. the highest peak.

Secondly, they claim this gives the corridor a potential capacity of 1,360 passengers/hr per direction. They've made the assumption that every bus carries 80 people, because I guess they saw that as the middle ground between a standard and bendy bus. In fact the current capacity of the corridor (based on 60 passengers per standard bus, and 100 for a bendy) is actually 2,520pp/h, assuming only the 333 uses artics in the peak. This is almost double their projected capacity for their first "solution" which amounts to just the use of PTIPS at intersections.

They're really shooting themselves in the foot, because the easiest thing they can do right now to lobby for more capacity is to work with the government to cull some stops, and to ask them to use higher capacity buses. They could even put some money forward to purchase higher capacity buses instead of wasting it on these reports where one of the suggestions is a friggin monorail!
This report was actually done for Waverley Council not the government. It's part of input to recommendations to government that council is preparing. I agree that it's terribly disappointing, like the same consultant's study for CSELR. It's bad luck for the council too because their previous commissioned study by AECOM on tram for Bondi was also flawed. It's a bit of an indictment of the contracting system. Once upon a time, government bodies would have the in-house expertise to do this sort of work. Maybe a bit more difficult resource-wise for a council but a lot of this stuff is simple, basic acquiring and processing of knowledge for a properly educated person in their profession. The calibre of some professionals out there nowadays is unimpressive, perhaps a result of dumbing-down in the education system.

The report simply ends in a recommendation for further study when it could easily come to some firm recommendations as you suggest. I feel sorry for councils and ratepayers who have their money sucked down the drain by these substandard commissioned studies.
neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by neilrex »

Bus services to Bondi Beach used to be simple, and have progressively become more and more complicated.

Complicated and tricky bus services are a great way to discourage people from using them, unless they are both local and also frequent users of them.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by tonyp »

neilrex wrote:Bus services to Bondi Beach used to be simple, and have progressively become more and more complicated.

Complicated and tricky bus services are a great way to discourage people from using them, unless they are both local and also frequent users of them.
There were two tram routes to Bondi Beach (via Bondi Rd and Birriga Rd) that easily met the (much greater) demand in vehicles carrying up to 250 passengers at about 5 minute headways. I don't know why these studies now forget about the second corridor which would take a lot of load off Bondi Rd.

Simplify it to two numbered routes using all-articulated buses with use of bus lanes, queue jumps and traffic light priority where it is most needed. And make sure there are at least 3 double-leaf doors in the buses, fully low floor AND all-door loading. The perfectly achievable bus solutions are obvious to blind freddy without needing to w... on about BRT, monorails etc as if by their name alone they will solve all of life's problems.

If that report came across my desk I'd throw it in the bin as soon as I saw the word monorail.
mandonov
Posts: 1712
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by mandonov »

Stu wrote:^ 333 is artic all day, seven days p/week - first trip until last trip

I'm not sure when this will be implemented, hopefully soon. The project involving Camperdown to Rozelle was advertised in December 2015, still waiting to see the implementation.
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/pro ... 016-03.pdf
Thanks. I knew the 333 was always arctic, I just wasn't sure if the other routes had any rostered.

I don't know how it's taking them over a year just to respond to the consultations held in March and May 2016.
simonl
Posts: 8003
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by simonl »

neilrex wrote:Bus services to Bondi Beach used to be simple, and have progressively become more and more complicated.

Complicated and tricky bus services are a great way to discourage people from using them, unless they are both local and also frequent users of them.
Pre-333 there was the L82 which did something similar. What are you referring to which has made them more complicated? X81 & X84? Not sure how long those routes have existed for. Can hardly see them as adding huge confusion, although I think their only purpose is to avoid the reluctance to add a HOV lane to Bondi Rd. Add a HOV lane and I reckon you could remove those routes, at first glance at least.

What is a real disincentive is slow services contributed to by diversions like the 381 diversion and a lot of stops. I hardly think having a 333 limited stops and 380 all stops does much harm. It's a net gain. At least the 381 diversion has been removed from the 380.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Bondi corridor study

Post by boronia »

The X84 was previously the 384 which was an express to the city version (introduced after 1960) of the 388 which replaced the Bellevue Hill tram line in 1954. IIRC, the 388 was killed off in the ESR reorganization in 1979, but the 384/X84 was kept on as a peak hour filler.
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Sydney / NSW”