How about extending Route 568 from its current terminus in Baldivis to Fifty Road to service the estates behind Baldivis Primary School!!!

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.

what's the point though? Who'd use it?

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 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.

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.

From what I've seen here, the City of Perth plan seems to be to have all buses leaving the busport running onto William Street northbound, then either going left for WSBS or right to Wellington and left onto Beaufort (for the Beaufort and Guildford services). There will be bus lanes fitted to parts of Wellington Street, with St Georges Terrace and the Wellington/Barrack/Beaufort intersection being "bus priority routes" while Fitzgerald and Beaufort streets will be "public transport priority routes".

Also William Street between Murray and Hay streets will be bus-only under the plan.

Not sure what the 16, 60 and 401 would do, with regards to either using William Street north once it's two-way or doubling back on themselves to use Beaufort going both ways.

I know this may be unrelavant what about introduce trams????? i.e. have Freo, Wellington Street/ Perth Station/ Esplanade as a bus/ train/ tram interchange?? Could save on traffic jams But only zone 1- 3?

If you have a look at the 2031 masterplan there are trams on the way and more funding went to planning in the last budget. Initially it will run north to MIrrabooka up Alexander drive.

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.

Thats OK, but I agree and like I said I dont understand why!!! Guess Ill have to send an email to someone!

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.

MY God, common sense - I'M ASTOUNDED. It's a Central Business District, ie, it contains things like offices and business head-quarters etc in multi-storey towers (dense) NOT just an idiotic place for coffee bean drinkers to disrupt the workings of all those who actually 'need' to enter the dreaded place.
The overwhelming majority of people on this site and just about everywhere else it seems are opposed to this artificially-congested farce that is rapidly unfolding and transforming the place into a place to avoid.
Of course, if you are a property developer you'll be rubbing your hands together (hmm - the PCC has a few of those)......but if you are a worker, for eg in transport such as emergency services, general service deliveries, buses, cabs or even a casual shopper, hire-car tourist, well.....it's bad news all the way. The place should be functional.
Instead it's fictional and unoriginal, trying to imitate other cities rather than manipulating its own unique assets.

What the hell is wrong with you? Isnt just best if you leave?

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!

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 mention

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!

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/viewt ... =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

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 mention

TP 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/viewt ... =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

I get where your coming from Leyland. All I was saying about was why laptop said to PE "he should go for the better of the website".

Cheers!

busdriver12 wrote:

laptop15 wrote:What the hell is wrong with you? Isnt just best if you leave?

Who made you boss of the wash?

- that is good, no......priceless!

Reminds me of "Prisoner".

Just my 2 cents, this thread has been inactive for 6 years! Just my 2 cents...

PART 1

Northern Services

Wanneroo Rd Services

384
No change.

385
Reroute and frequency change: Same route to Wanneroo Rd, then R Templeton, L Marangaroo, R Giralt into Kingsway, and make it a full limited stops service, operating every 15 mins 06:45 to 09:15 interchanging with the 386 to Perth, and every 15 mins 14:45 to 18:15 interchanging with the 386 from Perth.

386
Frequency change: Half-hourly 05:00 to 07:00, 15 mins interchanging with 385 07:00 to 09:30 to Perth, 20 mins from Perth 07:00 to 09:30, then 20 mins 09:30 to 15:00, 15 mins interchanging with 385 15:00 to 18:00 to Kingsway, 20 mins 15:00 to 18:00 to Perth, then half-hourly to midnight on Weekdays, same frequency as current on weekends

387
Withdraw, replace with a reincarnation of 449 service operating half-hourly 07:00 to 18:30 weekdays, and every 45 mins 08:00 to 17:45 Saturdays and 45 mins 09:00 to 17:00 Sundays.

388 and 389
Consolidate into route 980 (see below)

*New HIGH FREQUENCY Route* 980
Perth - Wanneroo via Warwick
Follows current Route 388 into Warwick, then exit Warwick, R Beach, R Davallia, R Warwick, L Wanneroo to follow current 389 into Wanneroo. Every 20 mins 05:00 to 07:00, every 7/8 mins 07:00 to 09:30, with every 2nd service only running Perth-Warwick and Vice-Versa , 10 mins 09:30 to 15:00, every 7/8 mins 15:00 to 19:00, with every 2nd service only running Perth-Warwick and Vice-Versa, then 20 Mins 19:00 to 21:00 and half-hourly 21:00 to 23:00 on Weekdays.

P.S. This now looks like 20 cents
P.P.S. Maybe this thread would be better in the Armchair Operators & Fantasy Networks Section

Those who know me in person will inevitably roll their eyes at this one.
A bug-bear of mine is the timetabling of the four services (114, 115, 150 & 160) travelling between Booragoon and the city, particularly towards the city off-peak weekdays and weekends, and from the city on weekends.
The opportunity presently being lost is being able to stagger the services to create a 7-8min frequency towards the city (and 15mins from the city on weekends), and increase connectivity en route with services such as the 910, 100 & 101. Instead you end up with 2-3 buses bunched up together serving a common area, which just doesn't seem sensible.

The 531 service is another that perhaps needs a bit of review. West of Stock Rd., it duplicates the 114 through Munster, whilst taking longer than other Rockingham Road services (e.g. 520, 530 and 549) to reach Fremantle. It doesn't really service Phoenix Shops (except for some daytime deviations around Coleville Cr.), then whips through the back of Hamilton Hill (where there is already access to a number of routes) to then service Forest & Rockingham Rds.
Headed towards Cockburn, you end up with passengers that don't know any better up the back wondering why its taking so long to reach Cockburn whilst you twist and turn through the back streets of Beeliar. Terminating the service on Watson Rd would be more ideal - according to this post the 531 is significantly less-utilised than other services in the area.

Lastly, for the developing area around Port Coogee, it would be nice to see some additional weekend trips for the 548 into the area. Given the length of the 548, I think servicing the area would be best done with short-working, rather than full-length services to/from Fremantle. Alternatively, I suppose the 512 might eventually be extended from its current terminus at the intersection of Spearwood Ave./Hamilton Rd.

I’d Have a good look at some of the strange workings in the Baldivis area. Plenty of services to and from Warnboro station especially for the schools - as there should be - but some glaringly obvious missed opportunities I.e. the 568. Terminates in the middle of nowhere most of the time and has occasional trips to Baldivis primary school. There’s several whole new areas built or being built in the north Baldivis/Fifty Rd/Mandurah Rd/Mundijong Rd area - not to mention the other primary school and spudshed. Surely there is a case to extend the 568 through the new estates to Rockingham via Mandurah Rd....or even Kwinana.

I remember the days of old route 115 / 117 traversing Old Mandurah Rd. This is even before the Ennis Avenue Extension. There was nothing at all to admire or look at from the corner of Day Road Rockingham and Silver Sands unless you like limestone, Baldivis Caravan Park or Golden Bay Petrol Station. Amazing how it has developed around Baldivis, golden Bay, secret harbour etc

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

PART 2

Eastern Services

Ellenbrook Services

334-337
Possible frequency increase, re-time to interchange with services (e.g. 334 at :00 and :30, 335 at :07 and :37, 336 at :15 and :45, 337 at :22 and :52)

353
Withdraw after New Lord St is built

355
Re-time to match all services with 334 workings (e.g. at :02 and :32)
955 and 956
Consolidate with 48 to create New High Frequency Route 955. Route will follow Current 48 to Bayswater Station then Straight along Coode St, R Rudloc Rd, L Russell St, R Morley Bus Station. Then it would follow current 955 to Ellenbrook. Every 20 mins 05:00 to 07:00, every 7/8 mins 07:00 to 09:30, with every 2nd service only running Perth-Bassendean and Vice-Versa, 15 mins 09:30 to 15:00, every 7/8 mins 15:00 to 19:00, with every 2nd service only running Perth-Bassendean and Vice-Versa, then 20 Mins 19:00 to 21:00 and half-hourly 21:00 to 23:00 on Weekdays. Every 20 mins 06:20 to 08:00, every 15 mins 08:00 to 19:00, then 20 mins 19:00 to 21:00 and half-hourly 21:00 to 23:00 on Weekends.

Guildford Rd Services

41
No change

42
No change

48
Consolidate with 955/6 into High Frequency 955 (see above)

55
Renumber to 43 to keep numbering consistent.

Other Services

*NEW* Route 348
Reinstate to cover the residential Bayswater area. Runs same route as previous incarnation, and with same frequency.

EDIT: I have uploaded this to Dropbox, inform me if the link does not work, this is my first time using Dropbox

After all these years, I still believe in running an Armadale to Bedfordale/ Churchmans Brook Estate Service. Every 40 mins in peak. Hourly off peak. Last service to leave Armadale at 7.30pm. Mon to Fri. Every 2hrs Sat and Sun
I'll call it new route 255 for now.
Servicing Carradine Road and Canns Rd to Waterwheel Rd.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

A few changes I would make:

- Retiring route 548 altogether and tweaking route 549 such that it continues South along Cockburn Rd (instead of turning down Rockingham Rd) to serve North Coogee (as the 548 did) before re-joining Rockingham Rd at Russel Rd, and continuing as normal from there.

- Extending route 584 a little to terminate at Lakelands shops rather than in the middle of Madora Bay would be a good option too I think

- Not so much a route change, but I will always be in support of upgrades at Canning Bridge Station that will allow the 100/101 to head onto the freeway and join Manning Road directly rather than spending ages stuck at the lights on Canning Hwy. 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.

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.

I like the idea but it would mean Clydesdale Street would be nothing but a multiple layover. The 148 is already laying over in a suburban street not to mention the regular 100 and 101 traversing through. I think you would have a lot of unhappy residents.

Maybe delete routes 100 and 101 and have all routes mentioned extend to Curtin Uni in place of the deleted routes.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

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.

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.

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!).

Bus Suggestions wrote:41...No change
42...No change

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.

Merc1107 wrote:

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.

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.

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!).

It's not so much time savings (I imagine they'd be about the same on average), but more from a cost perspective. According to most timetables the bus journey from Canning Bridge to EQ takes about twelve minutes (or 25 once the return journey is taken into account). 25min each over the 100+ buses that go through CB every day that adds up to a pretty significant amount of time and money spent for bus services that don't really need to exist in my opinion. Obviously Canning Bridge Station is lacking any sort of infrastructure to allow for terminating these services there but I can certainly see something happening with these routes one day. Extending these routes through CB to Curtin Uni and reducing the number of 100/101s I also think would work pretty well!