• Advertisement

Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

Perth / Western Australia Transport Discussion

Moderators: perthbus, Mr OC Benz

Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

Postby theenglishguy » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:22 am

I've been thinking for a while about the congestion along St George's Terrace at peak times (particularly PM). As I'm sure most of you know, it's pretty standard for the 3km journey from the Elizabeth Quay bus station to the Causeway to take 25 mins+. As a passenger it's really frustrating - and I doubt many bus drivers enjoy it either.

Personally, I think the problem is there are just too many buses running at the same time. I haven't worked it all out, but there are probably 150+ services scheduled along the Terrace between 4-5pm, yet the vast majority of these are less than 1/3 full and many are nearly empty. Unfortunately there just isn't room for a bus every 20 seconds, especially when accounting for time at traffic lights, paying for tickets etc.

It would be great if the PTA could do something about this, but it's not an easy fix. Some ideas I've had are:

  • Run more through-routed services like the 950. I know they were considering a 960 from Mirrabooka to Curtin, but I'm not sure if that's still going ahead. Other services like 24, 25, 27, 28, 103 could all be merged with routes east of Perth. Say the 103 merged with the 39, then 4-5 fewer buses would run down the Terrace each hour (as an example). It would also make travel from Vic Park/Burswood to Subiaco/QEII far easier.
  • Make St George's Terrace pre-paid only and add ticket machines next to bus stops. They do this a lot in Sydney where tickets can't be bought on the bus - it really speeds up boarding.
  • Convert the St George's Terrace clearway into a bus lane. The sections from Mill St to William St and Barrack St to Victoria Ave could definitely do with some red tarmac.
  • Remove services from the Kwinana Freeway (111, 158, 940 etc). Passengers would have to transfer at Canning Bridge (the new transfer station would be needed), but it would reduce congestion at Elizabeth Quay bus station

The Airport line will reduce the number of services slightly (282, 283, 288, 295, 296), but definitely not enough to resolve the problem. If it was up to me I would through-route nearly all services; have terminating everything in the city is a pain both for passengers and the PTA. Any potential savings from cutting services/less congestion could be put towards improved evening/weekend frequencies

It would be great to hear everyone's opinion on this. Please comment/criticise - hopefully this doesn't get ignored because it's in the General Discussion thread (thought better than to create a new post).
theenglishguy
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:38 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: WA Transport General Discussion & Questions - 2016

Postby 102 at 1625 » Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:08 pm

In response to theenglishguy:

The Terrace is tricky one, but something certainly needs to be done. I rarely use buses along the Terrace but on the few occasions that I have needed to it certainly wasn't fun.

Regarding through-routing, I personally don't like the idea of the PTA having to change bus services to ease congestion, given that it's the cars, not the buses that are causing it. Also, access to EQBS would be reduced, and there would likely be serious reliability issues with the ultra-long routes created. Plus, even if congestion on the Terrace did reduce in response to measures by the PTA, the Terrace would only become more attractive to car users (as traffic would be moving faster), and the gridlock would likely return eventually, but this time with more cars and less buses. It certainly could save resources, though.

Rerouting buses entirely is yet another option. Perhaps the 111, 150, 158 and 160 could go to WSBS once it opens, and even the 24/5/7 and the 103. Perhaps, some Causeway services could take Wellington Street to WSBS like the 220 did, but that would likely inconvenience passengers and make the CBD bus network less logical.

Given that the Terrace is and will continue to be a crucial bus corridor, it really deserves a continuous bus lane from the Causeway to at least Mill Street, and possibly all the way down Malcolm Street and Kings Park Road. As far as I know there isn't a parking shortage in the city (it's just expensive - and rightly so), so the removal of on-street parking shouldn't be a problem. But the inconvenience this may cause to motorists may render it politically impossible.

Prepay is an interesting idea. I'm not very familiar with it and consequently I'm quite wary of it. It might prove quite expensive to install ticket machines at every bus stop. Moreover, the receipt-style tickets used in Perth would have to be checked manually by the driver anyway, negating most time savings, unless a proof-of-payment system was introduced, but that could confuse infrequent users of the bus network. However, it seems to have worked in Sydney, so I guess it's an option that should be explored.
102 at 1625
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 5:06 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Has thanked: 240 times
Been thanked: 125 times
Favourite Vehicle: Volgren Optimus

Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

Postby Mr OC Benz » Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:33 pm

I think there's merit in a separate thread for this. I've actually been meaning to create one for some time now to address particular public transport issues within the Perth CBD.

theenglishguy wrote:
  • Run more through-routed services like the 950. I know they were considering a 960 from Mirrabooka to Curtin, but I'm not sure if that's still going ahead. Other services like 24, 25, 27, 28, 103 could all be merged with routes east of Perth. Say the 103 merged with the 39, then 4-5 fewer buses would run down the Terrace each hour (as an example). It would also make travel from Vic Park/Burswood to Subiaco/QEII far easier.

Yes the 960 was confirmed going ahead in 2016/17. 600,000 additional service kilometres allocated to the route. I agree with some through-routing, but I would limit it to joining routes which aren't already significantly long (i.e. less than say 45 minutes duration) to maintain service reliability and it wouldn't be able to happen until additional bus priority is provided along the Terrace. But once improvements have been made, the following routes could be combined:

theenglishguy wrote:
  • Make St George's Terrace pre-paid only and add ticket machines next to bus stops. They do this a lot in Sydney where tickets can't be bought on the bus - it really speeds up boarding.

  • I agree about ticket machines next to busy bus stops in the CBD. In addition, adopt proof-of-payment methods within the CBD to enable all-door boarding to be adopted at all CBD bus stops during daylight hours.

    theenglishguy wrote:
  • Remove services from the Kwinana Freeway (111, 158, 940 etc). Passengers would have to transfer at Canning Bridge (the new transfer station would be needed), but it would reduce congestion at Elizabeth Quay bus station

  • The new Canning Bridge Bus Interchange would certainly allow more flexibility with bus services and removal of services along Kwinana Fwy. This would enable the 111 and 158 to be entirely replaced and the 148 to operate between Fremantle and Canning Bridge on its current alignment.
    User avatar
    Mr OC Benz
    Moderator
     
    Posts: 5713
    Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
    Location: Sydney, NSW
    Has thanked: 462 times
    Been thanked: 1273 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

    Re: WA Transport General Discussion & Questions - 2016

    Postby theenglishguy » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:56 pm

    Mr OC Benz wrote:I think there's merit in a separate thread for this. I've actually been meaning to create one for some time now to address particular public transport issues within the Perth CBD.

    Thanks for that. I feel St George's Tce probably causes the most issues for buses in Perth, yet very few people seem to talk about it. Of course there are others as well like William St (not sure when that will become bus-only), and it would be great to hear about them too.

    102 at 1625 wrote:Regarding through-routing, I personally don't like the idea of the PTA having to change bus services to ease congestion, given that it's the cars, not the buses that are causing it. Also, access to EQBS would be reduced, and there would likely be serious reliability issues with the ultra-long routes created. Plus, even if congestion on the Terrace did reduce in response to measures by the PTA, the Terrace would only become more attractive to car users (as traffic would be moving faster), and the gridlock would likely return eventually, but this time with more cars and less buses. It certainly could save resources, though.

    I agree buses aren't usually the one's creating congestion, but I'm not sure that's the case with St George's Tce. It isn't exactly the number of buses causing issues, but the fact that buses have to queue up behind each other waiting to get to the stop. The section between Mill St and Barrack St is particularly bad with most buses stationary for 20-30 seconds at a time whilst people board. It isn't uncommon to have 8-9+ buses queued up in row.

    Yet even with all this congestion, cars travel much faster. They stay in the right-most lane and probably travel 2-3 times faster than buses.

    Mr OC Benz wrote:Yes the 960 was confirmed going ahead in 2016/17. 600,000 additional service kilometres allocated to the route. I agree with some through-routing, but I would limit it to joining routes which aren't already significantly long (i.e. less than say 45 minutes duration) to maintain service reliability and it wouldn't be able to happen until additional bus priority is provided along the Terrace.

    That's great to hear. Will it just be replacing the 72/75 and 888? I'm looking forward to seeing what route through the city is used. Down St George's Tce to Barrack or William St doesn't seem very feasible, would be far quicker to use Wellington St instead.

    Regarding through-routing, I agree completely. My example of the 103 was pretty unrealistic, but shorter routes like the 24, 25, 27, 28, 39, 40 have a bit more potential
    theenglishguy
     
    Posts: 93
    Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:38 pm
    Has thanked: 31 times
    Been thanked: 39 times

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Mr OC Benz » Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:08 pm

    Ultimately for the Perth CBD and surrounds, I would like to see the following happen.

    Infrastructure improvements:
    Design and develop a distinctively Perth, CBD bus shelter design that incorporates the following:
    • Improved sheltering from sunlight, rain and wind
    • Improved sight lines and clearance at bus stops to facilitate all-door boarding during peak demand periods (i.e. during daylight hours)
    • Provide real-time information displays for bus services
    • Improved signage and information including local area maps and schematic route diagrams for bus routes serving those stops
    • Installation of ticket machines which can facilitate Smartrider add-value and the purchase of cash fares before boarding
    • Provide additional bus priority lanes along St Georges Tce between Milligan St and William St and between Barrack St and Victoria Ave
    Route design improvements:
    Facilitate further through-routing of selected bus services:
    - East-West (along St Georges Tce)
    • Route 24 and Route 39 to form one route between Claremont and Redcliffe with ultimate extension to Airport West Station (and simplified more direct route through Kewdale and Cloverdale).
    • Route 25 and Route 38 to form one route between Claremont and Cloverdale. Once the FAL opens, I suspect that route 288 in its current form will no longer be viable. So I would propose to expand the operating hours of the 38 to match the equivalent of the 288 during the day. Both sides of the route should be upgraded to a 30 min off-peak headway on weekdays at least and more frequent services on the Perth-Belmont segment on weekends to relieve pressure off route 37.
    • Truncate Route 27 to operate as a feeder between Shenton Park Station and Claremont Station. Introduce a new high frequency bus service to operate between Shenton Park Depot and Airport West Station (replacing current route 40 entirely and routes 27, 36, 295, 296 and 299 partially).
    • Routes 111, 158, 881 and 940 truncated to terminate at Canning Bridge Station, no longer travelling via Kwinana Fwy, Elizabeth Quay Bus Station and St Georges Tce.
    - East-West (along Wellington St)
    • Extend the Yellow CAT westward to a new terminus at Subiaco Station. Also, upon commencement of development surrounding Belmont Park and Stadium Station, extend selected trips from East Perth to travel to Belmont Park via Graham Farmer Fwy. Increase operating hours to operate daily from 6am to midnight.

    I have been over the past several months, working on multiple solutions to buses which travel North-South into/through the City. I will post up my ideas on these soon.
    User avatar
    Mr OC Benz
    Moderator
     
    Posts: 5713
    Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
    Location: Sydney, NSW
    Has thanked: 462 times
    Been thanked: 1273 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Leyland B21 » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:06 pm

    Through routing has occurred many times in the past from east to west. I remember how late the 207 and 36 used to be when the 207 through routed from cottesloe to maida vale and 36 from cottesloe to Midland back in the day. The issue of delay was problematic on both sides of the river. Mainly traffic around Great Eastern Hwy as well as St Georges Terrace were key issues. I believe it can work if timed right but you have the issue of 3 contract areas. In saying that the 950 and circle routes work well as a combined effort.

    I personally would have through routed the 930 from Thornlie to QE2 Medical Centre and withdraw route 103 as it shadows Route 998/999 between QE2 and Fremantle anyway as well as the railway between Claremont and Fremantle. NTH Freo could take on a couple of Shenton Park Rosters to substitue the loss of 103 and Shenton Park can share 930 with Beckenham & Southern River.
    You can take the boy out of Armadale W.A but you cant take Armadale out of the boy!!!
    User avatar
    Leyland B21
     
    Posts: 1771
    Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:12 pm
    Location: Narre Warren!!!
    Has thanked: 246 times
    Been thanked: 78 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Former Perth B21 /#32

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Frederick » Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:57 pm

    I agree with the premise that St Georges Terrace is hitting its capacity in terms of bus numbers. Off-board payment and all-door boarding should reduce dwell time and increase capacity, but there's also a lot that could be done in streamlining route structure.

    Throughrouting would reduce unused and non-useful capacity, but can exacerbate late running. I suppose that is why it has been abandoned in the past, and today has been applied only to high frequency services, where from the passengers concept there is no concept of delay to a particular bus. (Eg ten minute delays are imperceptible to boarding passengers on a bus with a ten minute frequency, while being extremely inconvenient on a half-hourly or hourly bus).

    Hence I also came up with the idea of routing the 930 through to QEII and removing the 103. I would even consider extending it to Claremont and truncating the 102 and 107 at Claremont (or throughrouting those buses through Claremont), to give a frequent limited stops and orbital service (Circleroute) and frequent all-stops and CBD-bound service (930) on that section of Stirling Hwy, for the same or less service kilometers as today.

    Granted, this would remove direct access from Claremont Station (and routes passing through it) to UWA, as passengers would have to walk from Claremont Station to Stirling Hwy, transfer along Stirling Hwy, or walk from Hampden Rd (or Broadway) to UWA, although as a student I would say that walking far longer distances is a part of attending uni anyway.

    William Street was virtually gridlocked (travel times in excess of an hour through the CBD) when SoR routes served it, and only gained a reprieve when these were truncated at the then Esplanade Busport. If these routes are returned to the new Busport bus congestion will be reappear (unless if these routes only extend during the off-peak), and will be further exacerbated with the addition of the 960. In the longer term perhaps more routes should feed into the Midland Line, but this would have to wait for additional capacity (probably at the completion of the FAL).

    Perhaps routes other the 950, such as the 60, 66, 41, 42, 48 and 55 (16 may be gone or truncated soon) should be sent to the Perth Busport, to make room for the 960.
    Frederick
     
    Posts: 9
    Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 4:15 pm
    Has thanked: 0 time
    Been thanked: 2 times

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby theenglishguy » Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:26 am

    Frederick wrote:Throughrouting would reduce unused and non-useful capacity, but can exacerbate late running. I suppose that is why it has been abandoned in the past, and today has been applied only to high frequency services, where from the passengers concept there is no concept of delay to a particular bus. (Eg ten minute delays are imperceptible to boarding passengers on a bus with a ten minute frequency, while being extremely inconvenient on a half-hourly or hourly bus).

    I agree, it makes sense for long, infrequent routes to stay at the busport, but short, more frequent ones work much better when through-routed. There might be issues with reliability, but I think these can be minimised. It's done everywhere else in the world, why not here?

    The Elizabeth Quay Bus Station is pretty much at capacity during peak times anyway, so doing nothing will also impact reliability. Today it took me 6-7 mins to get from the stand at the busport just onto St George's Tce (about 400m) - that could be completely avoided with through-routing.

    Frederick wrote:William Street was virtually gridlocked (travel times in excess of an hour through the CBD) when SoR routes served it, and only gained a reprieve when these were truncated at the then Esplanade Busport. If these routes are returned to the new Busport bus congestion will be reappear (unless if these routes only extend during the off-peak), and will be further exacerbated with the addition of the 960. In the longer term perhaps more routes should feed into the Midland Line, but this would have to wait for additional capacity (probably at the completion of the FAL).

    Perhaps routes other the 950, such as the 60, 66, 41, 42, 48 and 55 (16 may be gone or truncated soon) should be sent to the Perth Busport, to make room for the 960.

    It's going to be really interesting seeing what will happen to the network when the new Wellington St bus station opens. I can definitely see the merit in extending some of the routes from South Perth. The current situation where a lot of routes terminate at the edge of the CBD is poor practice and makes it so difficult for passengers to make connections. Travelling from South Perth to Subiaco requires two changes at the moment, that's completely unacceptable.

    Of course, there's also the fact that adding extra buses to William Street will just make the congestion worse. Making it bus only will help slightly, but probably not enough. Through-routing seems like the only reasonable solution.

    One of my suggestions would be to simplify the 34, then merge it with the 15. Would provide a good quality North-South route connecting Glendalough-Mount Hawthorn-CBD-South Perth-Curtin. I'd also avoid running it through the Elizabeth Quay Busport, instead go from the freeway straight up William St.
    theenglishguy
     
    Posts: 93
    Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:38 pm
    Has thanked: 31 times
    Been thanked: 39 times

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Mr OC Benz » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:13 pm

    Frederick wrote:Hence I also came up with the idea of routing the 930 through to QEII and removing the 103. I would even consider extending it to Claremont and truncating the 102 and 107 at Claremont (or throughrouting those buses through Claremont), to give a frequent limited stops and orbital service (Circleroute) and frequent all-stops and CBD-bound service (930) on that section of Stirling Hwy, for the same or less service kilometers as today.

    Granted, this would remove direct access from Claremont Station (and routes passing through it) to UWA, as passengers would have to walk from Claremont Station to Stirling Hwy, transfer along Stirling Hwy, or walk from Hampden Rd (or Broadway) to UWA, although as a student I would say that walking far longer distances is a part of attending uni anyway.

    I do like the idea of an extended 930 that you and Leyland B21 have come up with. It's never really occurred to me about how the 103 could easily be substituted with other options. The only real benefit of it now that I think of it is being able to get from Stirling Hwy or QEII to anywhere along the Terrace. 102/107 serves EQ, 98/99 serves (in a limited stops fashion) pretty much between Fremantle and QEII. Then you have the other options like the 24/25 from QEII to the Terrace that way. For many others across Perth to get the Terraces generally requires, particularly from the south and north, at least one transfer, so the western suburbs get it pretty lucky.

    The scenario for UWA patrons could however be avoided if such a 930 extension followed the CircleRoute and went up Winthrop Ave instead of Hampden Rd. After all, Hampden Rd already has the 24, 97 and 950 operating through there and most of that section is walkable from either Stirling Hwy or QEII southern stops. So small trade-off, but much bigger benefit by being able to serve UWA more directly which I suspect would generate more patronage anyway. Truncating the 102/107 at Claremont would however mean that a trip from Claremont to the southern part of the CBD could potentially take longer (for those accessing Elizabeth Quay and anywhere south of the Terrace) due to the slightly longer route via QEII. However I guess there is also the option of changing to a 950 at UWA if people really insist on only having the shortest walk possible. The benefits would balance out anyway.

    Frederick wrote:William Street was virtually gridlocked (travel times in excess of an hour through the CBD) when SoR routes served it, and only gained a reprieve when these were truncated at the then Esplanade Busport. If these routes are returned to the new Busport bus congestion will be reappear (unless if these routes only extend during the off-peak), and will be further exacerbated with the addition of the 960. In the longer term perhaps more routes should feed into the Midland Line, but this would have to wait for additional capacity (probably at the completion of the FAL).

    Perhaps routes other the 950, such as the 60, 66, 41, 42, 48 and 55 (16 may be gone or truncated soon) should be sent to the Perth Busport, to make room for the 960.


    I think the intention is for anything coming via Beaufort St Bridge to terminate at Perth Busport via the tunnel (except for 950). I know this certainly was going to be the case if MAX ever eventuated, but with the addition of the Wellington Street tunnel into the project scope, also allows for a better opportunity to do so earlier. Also if they are claiming the new tunnel will remove 40% of bus services from William St, then this can't be achieved without those routes being routed into Perth Busport anyway!

    Certainly no need now for any of the Mounts Bay Road services to extend up to Perth Busport given the 950 already serves that purpose, but I think the previous routes that did should return to do so as often picked up more people given they were able to get right into the heart of the city from the south. Ultimately, when a new Canning Bridge bus interchange does eventuate, then routes like the 881 and 940 no longer need to travel via William St as they would just terminate at Canning Bridge and transfer everyone onto trains. But unless the remaining routes (30, 31 and 34) are able to be through-routed or absorbed elsewhere, then I do think they should continue to operate to Perth Busport. Maintaining some southern connections is still important. Even having some connections between Perth Busport and Elizabeth Quay is important, although certainly not as important as it was before given that it is often quicker and easier to just walk between the two.

    I'd also like to see the Blue CAT be re-routed to operate both directions along William St and removed from Elizabeth Quay Bus Station. Instead start from Barrack Square, operate via The Esplanade (new stop to serve Elizabeth Quay Station/Bus Station), then via William St, Horseshoe Bridge (new stop at top of Yagan Square), then up William St to Aberdeen St before looping back via current route to William St, then back to Barrack Square. It would serve Northbridge, Perth and Elizabeth Quay precinct better and remove the unnecessary routing into Elizabeth Quay Bus Station. The current routing is ridiculous no longer reaching its full potential to provide a good north-south CBD transit connection. I think the Blue CAT is supposed to move to William St anyway, however I believe this is subject to the William St bus only road being completed.

    One-way routes should only exist if bi-directional routes are not possible to achieve with the road layout, or to provide greater coverage (more relevant to outer suburban areas). They are too confusing or are only half as useful (or in the case of the current Blue CAT routing, probably only a third as useful). For Northbridge, it is still more practical to serve it in its current loop format given the existing road constraints but certainly the north-south portion is best consolidated to one road with the terminating section being more preferable to Barrack Square given there being no need to bring the bus into Elizabeth Quay with all the services that currently go there anyway. This would also remove conflicting road users from Barrack St given the implementation of segregated bike lanes along this road.
    User avatar
    Mr OC Benz
    Moderator
     
    Posts: 5713
    Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
    Location: Sydney, NSW
    Has thanked: 462 times
    Been thanked: 1273 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Leyland B21 » Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:10 pm

    I also believe with the frequency of route 950 that route 67 & 68 need to be rerouted somehow to avoid Beaufort Street as you no longer need anymore services along that stretch. I'm looking to see how this can be accomplished as Grand Promenade needs a service.
    You can take the boy out of Armadale W.A but you cant take Armadale out of the boy!!!
    User avatar
    Leyland B21
     
    Posts: 1771
    Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:12 pm
    Location: Narre Warren!!!
    Has thanked: 246 times
    Been thanked: 78 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Former Perth B21 /#32

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby 102 at 1625 » Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:03 pm

    Perhaps they could route them to Morley or Bayswater off peak but retain them in their current form during peak periods.
    102 at 1625
     
    Posts: 308
    Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 5:06 pm
    Location: Perth, Western Australia
    Has thanked: 240 times
    Been thanked: 125 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Volgren Optimus

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Leyland B21 » Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:11 pm

    I'd thought of that idea but can't see it working. Grand Promenade definitely needs a service between Walter Road and Beaufort Street. I was thinking maybe the 67 can turn right into Walter Road and take some pressure off the 60. But 68 would need to at the minimum run hourly all day to keep some service in the area. Again that most likely wouldn't work either.
    You can take the boy out of Armadale W.A but you cant take Armadale out of the boy!!!
    User avatar
    Leyland B21
     
    Posts: 1771
    Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:12 pm
    Location: Narre Warren!!!
    Has thanked: 246 times
    Been thanked: 78 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Former Perth B21 /#32

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Mr OC Benz » Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:11 pm

    Grand Promenade services are quite popular during peak periods with 67's typically carrying fully seated loads in the AM before even getting to Beaufort St. During the day I believe they do generate a little bit of patronage for those getting from Bedford/Dianella etc to Beaufort St and vice-versa. It would be very hard to justify their removal from Beaufort St, at least until a Morley rail line of some sort eventuates. If anything, I actually think that if peak capacity needs to be added along Beaufort St, this should be in the form of more 67's rather than 950's. With 950's already running every 3-4 mins from Morley in the peak, layover space (and bus stand loading space) is at a premium at that bus station and adding any more peak services will only escalate that problem. They do get decent loads departing Morley, but certainly there is still plenty of capacity to deal with any growth that specifically pertains to between Morley and Grand Promenade with the current frequencies. Also, by increasing the frequency of 67's to cater for increases in demand on Beaufort St, that increased service frequency may become an important attractor for increased bus usage along the Grand Prom corridor.

    Personally I think at 3-4 minute headways from Morley, if additional capacity is really needed specifically on the 950, then it should be in the form of larger vehicles (i.e. articulated buses) rather than adding even more extra trips. It starts to get ridiculous when you are running ultra-high frequencies without maximising your potential bus capacity that could be achieved per trip. Also if it does begin to get to this stage, then they really need to be taking a look at Smartrider data to see exactly what the travel patterns are. Is everyone really just going to Perth CBD? Or are they trying to get to other places beyond and if so, would the demand exist to introduce new routes (crosstown, express etc) to free up capacity for more people on the 950 who are actually wanting to go to Perth CBD.

    I believe in consolidation of services, but also at the same time, you need to be realistic. If the consolidated service is close to capacity, then you need to explore alternatives and see whether this is legitimately because of everyone wanting to go the CBD, or whether they are trying to access other employment areas around Perth. The data exists to examine these scenarios and they go on about implementing smart transport solutions, so certainly using this data to determine travel patterns rather than just patronage levels will help in the ability to design popular bus routes that actually go where people want to get to.

    In the longer term, if Beaufort St is converted to some form of rapid transit, or a new underground line does eventuate, then I would be in favour of 67/68s no longer being required along Beaufort St. I still think it's important that the alignment they provide along Grand Prom and The Strand remains however. But some of the ideas I have thought for these is to run them as normal to Beaufort St as far as Inglewood Town Centre, then divert through the back streets to terminate at Maylands Station. Not only would this reduce unnecessary service duplication along Beaufort St, but would significantly improve public transport connections from the Midland Line to the northern suburbs and still allow transfers onto the rapid transit service along Beaufort St at Inglewood. Such a route change would also help to adjust the network to be less CBD-radial, reduce the physical barrier that the railway lines impose on the bus network and become more focused on providing alternative connections within the inner-metropolitan area.
    User avatar
    Mr OC Benz
    Moderator
     
    Posts: 5713
    Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
    Location: Sydney, NSW
    Has thanked: 462 times
    Been thanked: 1273 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Shoudy Chen » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:20 pm

    Remove Route 66 first. There is too much duplication between EQBS and Morley Bus Station especially with the Route 950. William St is really gridlocked during peak hours. Simplify 41, 42, 48 and 55 with a Route 960. That will reduce the duplication.
    User avatar
    Shoudy Chen
     
    Posts: 395
    Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:55 am
    Location: Perth
    Has thanked: 24 times
    Been thanked: 17 times

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Leyland B21 » Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:10 pm

    Split routes 41,42,48,55 to run to Maylands Station. Have 2 routes operating from Maylands to Perth. One via Lord Street and 1 via East Parade. Just an idea. Alternate them. Would not need to be as frequent on the Perth leg for either
    You can take the boy out of Armadale W.A but you cant take Armadale out of the boy!!!
    User avatar
    Leyland B21
     
    Posts: 1771
    Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:12 pm
    Location: Narre Warren!!!
    Has thanked: 246 times
    Been thanked: 78 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Former Perth B21 /#32

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby theenglishguy » Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:50 pm

    Shoudy Chen wrote:Remove Route 66 first. There is too much duplication between EQBS and Morley Bus Station especially with the Route 950. William St is really gridlocked during peak hours. Simplify 41, 42, 48 and 55 with a Route 960. That will reduce the duplication.


    I'm surprised the 66 has lasted this long. They replaced a few services with 950s a few years as passenger numbers had dropped and time savings were minimal - I'd go ahead and do the same for the remaining ones.

    I can't see 41, 42, 48 and 55 being merged into a single route as they service a wide catchment area, but the 41 and 42 could be consolidated. I'd run services along the 41 route through Maylands, then go down Peninsula Rd.

    Perth really does have too many infrequent services, there are so many opportunities to consolidate routes and reduce headways. A 600m walk to a route that runs every 15 mins is far more useful for passengers than a 200m walk to a route running every 30 mins. Wouldn't require any extra money, but would annoy some pensioners.
    theenglishguy
     
    Posts: 93
    Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:38 pm
    Has thanked: 31 times
    Been thanked: 39 times

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby busdriver12 » Sun Mar 06, 2016 1:31 pm

    From a driver's perspective:

    Through routing will not solve these problems until some sort of priority is given to buses through the city. I recently operated a Route
    930 into the city during pm peak and the main problems are normal traffic in the westbound bus lane heading for William St south and the sequencing of traffic lights along William St to EQBS. On one occasion it took 4 changes at St George's Tce/William St to get onto William St. The lights at William St/Esplanade give priority to traffic along The Esplanade to William St and onto the Freeway entrances, and this has a ripple effect back into the city along William St and the Terrace.

    Unless the ability of buses to flow through it relatively unimpeded is addressed, through routed buses will only be on time on approach only to run late trying to exit the city.

    Also, any priority areas such as bus lanes needs to be enforced as most Perth drivers are inherently disobedient towards signage.
    Phil

    My timetable info can be found here Current as at 26/5/19.
    Current route/contract info can be found here

    All views expressed are strictly my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else.
    User avatar
    busdriver12
     
    Posts: 116
    Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:07 pm
    Location: Byford
    Has thanked: 6 times
    Been thanked: 43 times
    Favourite Vehicle: One that doesn't break down!

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Mr OC Benz » Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:12 pm

    theenglishguy wrote:
    Shoudy Chen wrote:Remove Route 66 first. There is too much duplication between EQBS and Morley Bus Station especially with the Route 950. William St is really gridlocked during peak hours. Simplify 41, 42, 48 and 55 with a Route 960. That will reduce the duplication.


    I can't see 41, 42, 48 and 55 being merged into a single route as they service a wide catchment area, but the 41 and 42 could be consolidated. I'd run services along the 41 route through Maylands, then go down Peninsula Rd.

    They did the exact opposite when route 43 was removed and thank god for that.

    About 15 years ago there was the proposal of turning the 41 and 42 into Maylands feeders and removing route 43. This was strongly opposed. Route 42 is quite popular in the peaks (that extra AM peak trip slotted in between the standard 20 min frequency is to alleviate loading issues which were common for years!). 41 is not as popular and I reckon could be gotten away with turning into a feeder. There's a much higher population catchment along Peninsula Rd than Caledonian Ave however. Both routes are required in some form to serve the suburb properly.

    This is an area I'm well familiar with. I've been thinking of possible solutions such as:
    • Withdrawal of routes 41 and 48 to be replaced by new route 45 and new high frequency service along Guildford Rd.
    • Remove deviations of route 42 to Maylands Shopping Centre (to be served by extended route 406) and provide consistent hourly departures daily until midnight (20 mins in peak).
    • Introduction of new route 45 operating between Morley and Maylands via Embleton and Bayswater. Serves feeder purposes for Embleton by connecting to trains at Bayswater and also serves feeder purposes for those along the current route 41 alignment by connecting them to trains at Maylands. Opportunities to connect to Guildford Rd services continuing to travel into the CBD can also be made in Bayswater and/or Maylands.
    • Longer term potential for route 55 to also be converted to a feeder to terminate at Bayswater, however subject to further investigation. Service frequency should be improved if this does happen though.
    • Extension of route 406 from ECU Mt Lawley to Clarkson Rd, Maylands via Central Ave, Maylands Station and Peninsula Rd. Introduce weekend daytime services. Extension of route intended to encourage increased public transport use along the Maylands Peninsula in what is a predominantly medium density suburb and provide additional crosstown travel options through the inner-metropolitan area. Areas served by route 406 to continue to be served by existing bus routes at night.
    • Introduce new high frequency bus route operating between Bayswater and (to be determined) western suburb destination via Guildford Rd, Lord St and Perth CBD.
    User avatar
    Mr OC Benz
    Moderator
     
    Posts: 5713
    Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
    Location: Sydney, NSW
    Has thanked: 462 times
    Been thanked: 1273 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby goroundandround » Sun Mar 06, 2016 5:29 pm

    All drivers I've spoken to are very happy NOT to be travelling between Betty Jetty and The Dungeon (Elizabeth Quay and the underground Wellington St) and experiencing the highly variable delays that it entails.

    Terminating the commuting-period buses that used to extend to WSBS on Row A, near the 950 stand, might make the dreaded "change-buses effect" less of an issue. Going upstairs, through the Bus Station, then downstairs again is more of a hassle than walking 10 or 20m to a very frequent service, and the latter should ameliorate the patronage drop that occurs whenever a through-city service is stopped.

    Sadly, the sensible answer of having intra-CBD shuttle buses feeding transfer stations at the edge of the city centre isn't likely, due to this reluctance of passengers to change buses.
    User avatar
    goroundandround
     
    Posts: 299
    Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:16 pm
    Has thanked: 0 time
    Been thanked: 26 times

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby theenglishguy » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:43 pm

    It's interesting to see the City of Perth advocating more through-routing. It illustrates really well what I was trying say. Here's one pic from their Integrated Transport Strategy:

    Image

    The City of Perth is also planning for light rail to travel along St George's Tce all the way from the Causeway to Parliament House. Some buses would be re-routed down Wellington St (might post some pics in the MAX light rail thread).

    The full doc is in the agenda for the meeting tonight:

    http://www.perth.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/events/pl160308%20-%20Agenda_0.pdf
    theenglishguy
     
    Posts: 93
    Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:38 pm
    Has thanked: 31 times
    Been thanked: 39 times

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby TP1173 » Thu Mar 10, 2016 6:56 pm

    Thought it was quite relevant to the topic at hand. Source: Transperth (PTA)

    Link: http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/Service ... -970-20707

    "Changes are proposed to routes 354, 370 and 870, which will result in the creation of a new high frequency service, Route 970.

    View a map of the proposed Routes 370, 384 and 970.

    Services are proposed to change as follows:

    Route 870 is proposed to be withdrawn and replaced by new Route 970.

    Route 970 would run a high frequency service between the new Perth Busport and Mirrabooka Bus Station via Charles St, Flinders St and Nollamara Av.

    Route 970 would run as follows:

    Every 5 minutes during peak
    Every 10 minutes during the day on weekdays
    Every 15 minutes during the day on weekends
    Every 30 minutes at night
    Route 354 is proposed to be withdrawn and replaced by New Route 384

    Route 384 which would run between the new Perth Busport and Mirrabooka Bus Station via Charles St, Wanneroo Rd and the Nollamara Shopping Centre.

    Route 384 would run as follows:

    Every 15 Minutes during the peak
    Every 30 minutes during the day on weekdays
    Every 30 minutes on Saturdays
    Every 60 minutes on Sundays
    Every 60 minutes at night.
    This service would provide Wanneroo Rd residents with direct access to Mirrabooka for the first time and provide greater network opportunities for Nollamara residents.

    The frequency of Route 384 is based on patronage recorded within Nollamara.

    Many residents currently boarding existing Route 354 are within reasonable walking distance of alternative high frequency services including the proposed Route 970, Route 415 along Ravenswood Dr and routes 386 to 389 on Wanneroo Rd.

    Route 370 is proposed to be retained as a peak period limited stops version of Route 970.

    Route 370 would run every 10 minutes during weekday peak.
    This service would run in conjunction with Route 970 in peak providing additional capacity, frequency and reduced journey times with a limited stopping pattern (similar pattern to the existing 870 service).
    Routes 370, 384 and 970 would all be serviced using accessible buses."

    MAP OF PROPOSED CHANGES: http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/Portals ... %20Map.pdf
    TP1173
     
    Posts: 142
    Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 8:56 pm
    Has thanked: 25 times
    Been thanked: 33 times
    Favourite Vehicle: High Floors!

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Mr OC Benz » Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:01 pm

    Also covered in more detail (including discussion on the proposal) here. Please keep this thread for generalised discussion on CBD and surrounds transport.
    User avatar
    Mr OC Benz
    Moderator
     
    Posts: 5713
    Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
    Location: Sydney, NSW
    Has thanked: 462 times
    Been thanked: 1273 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Leyland B21 » Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:00 pm

    Just on this though. Could have through routed the 970 along route 220 to East Victoria Park. Take some of the pressure off Albany Hwy Services.

    Just a thought
    You can take the boy out of Armadale W.A but you cant take Armadale out of the boy!!!
    User avatar
    Leyland B21
     
    Posts: 1771
    Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:12 pm
    Location: Narre Warren!!!
    Has thanked: 246 times
    Been thanked: 78 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Former Perth B21 /#32

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby Mr OC Benz » Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:16 pm

    Route 960 is expected to cover parts of that though on its way to Curtin University.
    User avatar
    Mr OC Benz
    Moderator
     
    Posts: 5713
    Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
    Location: Sydney, NSW
    Has thanked: 462 times
    Been thanked: 1273 times
    Favourite Vehicle: Anything German

    Re: Perth CBD and surrounds: Public Transport Discussion

    Postby TP1173 » Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:57 pm

    There were a few suggestions regarding the 940 and personally first of all, I can see it changing numbers maybe to 91x? to fit the current HF service pattern, then I also had an idea, that perhaps, instead of routing the 940 into the city, you could dump everyone at Canning Bridge, and continue to Curtin Uni and replace the 100/101 service. The link to Cannington from the 100 would still be provided by another HF to/from Curtin and so would require a change in bus. But the near majority of people on the 100/101 are more than likely going to Curtin, not Cannington.

    This achieves the following;
    • Stops the 940 from being delayed along the freeway.
    • You can't terminate the 940 without station upgrades - so that achieves that too.
    • Gets rid of the need for that pointless turn around point at Canning Bridge for 100/101.
    • Fills in the plan for a HF service from Curtin to Boorgaoon via Canning Bridge.
    • Gets rid of the 881 because it provides a HF service from C.B. Stn to Booragoon - and if 501 goes HF then that fills in the Marmion St gap - and when the Fremantle to Cockburn HF service finally gets implemented, the Southern range of the service is met. 502 already ticks off the little bit near Leach and other services cover the rest....
    • Doesn't require many extra resources - the existing 100/101 services can fall under the same operator but the new HF number but only run short journey's to Booragoon perhaps so alternate every 10 minutes between all the way to Hammy Hill and only to Booragoon.

    Only suggestion. Yes the majority of pax go to the city, like myself, and that's because the bus goes there so there is no point transferring when it takes the same amount of time to the city... Only concern I have is in peak hour when the trains are at capacity - and it reduces a vital backup link for when the trains are down....
    TP1173
     
    Posts: 142
    Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 8:56 pm
    Has thanked: 25 times
    Been thanked: 33 times
    Favourite Vehicle: High Floors!

    Next


    • Advertisement

    Return to Discussion - Perth / WA

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests