本帖最後由 cz9328 於 2019-7-4 20:09 編輯
shakugan2005 發表於 2019-7-3 22:39
穗禾苑就可以架架80M/81K/280X上哂去, 269M就要搬哂D蛇車去荔景北? 咁又唔好話要280X搬落山尾街以方便12米 ...
在2017年尾...有關方面想安排調坑俾81K換大車, 但都有人搞事...差D撻Q的。
幸好當日 81K (暫時) 換唔成...280x都照換住先, 否則今日情況更壞...
話晒穗禾都放咗架出車率較好嘅KC7987 俾U廠,在ASV到期時幫過吓269M.
踏入2019年7月, 其實81K每日都起碼3至4枚12米車行緊。假如山尾街就掉頭, 實俾地區人士插...山頭議員辦事處睇交通算係睇得緊!
本帖最後由 cz9328 於 2019-7-4 21:26 編輯
shakugan2005 發表於 2019-7-3 22:39
穗禾苑就可以架架80M/81K/280X上哂去, 269M就要搬哂D蛇車去荔景北? 咁又唔好話要280X搬落山尾街以方便12米 ...
你搞錯啦...根本冇人阻止280x換12米車...假如真係要參照269M嘅做法...唔能夠換大車就要搞特班縮短行程...要搞山尾街特車嘅應該係換車有阻滯嘅81K 線囉...
再者, 某行蹤網所見...280x 線唔係無人關注bor, 相反81K網民報字軌嘅熱鬧程度...相比之下係冷清DD...
不過呢, 81K 在兩個非常不理想嘅模式下都可以換晒12米。
(i) 部份81K班次縮短路線以山尾街做總站。
(ii) 81K 改成循環線, 減少車輛停泊在穗禾的時間, 亦即減少停留在穗禾嘅81K 車輛數目。
當然, 81K 改循環線缺點亦甚大, 容易做成有緣人/不穩定班次 (火炭往新田圍方向)
但如果到依家仍未見兩軸 streetdeck出街做生意,而KD牌躉亦都在不足一個月到期。
假如當局夠膽/迫住行 option (i) , 亦必定有人會糾正當局以 option (ii) 改做循環線解決泊站問題。
當然有足夠短車行緊, 81K未必適合改循環線...但假如去到馬死落地行嘅局面...
cz9328 發表於 2019-7-4 21:19
你搞錯啦...根本冇人阻止280x換12米車...假如真係要參照269M嘅做法...唔能夠換大車就要搞特班縮短行程... ...
咁就算唔計81K, 到今日都仲有大量ASV/ATS/ATSE行D根本冇需要用短車既路線, 到真係除留廠外一部短車都出唔到去冇需要用短車既路線/柯打或81K果種線先好話短缺要269M改道, 昨日U廠有ATS行258P/59A, 今日就有269M短車掛牌行252/67M(某行蹤網所見), 但269M就派左一半12米車荔景北止步, 甚至荔廠果面派到ASV行12都唔去救濟269M咁邊叫短車短缺? 不過依方面真係要祖堯果邊自己出聲先得, 當佢地自己都唔出聲咁就抵佢地服務被削減
好簡單，269M以天水圍客為主，而佢地主要既目的地係荃葵，極少去到荔景甚或祖堯。
係呢個大前提下，只要唔係老九靜靜雞減班收車，換成12米，對269M主要搭客來講（即天水圍居民），係有著數，又點會去反對？
剩返就係祖堯人囉，咁就要睇下佢地夠唔夠牙力啦。
neoplan720p 發表於 2019-7-4 22:20
好簡單，269M以天水圍客為主，而佢地主要既目的地係荃葵，極少去到荔景甚或祖堯。
係呢個大前提下，只要唔 ...
所以未話因為30服務實在太好所以先會搞到荃灣來往祖堯/麗瑤會搭265M/269M, 而265M/269M係祖堯/麗瑤既客量對比起30可能仲高D, 至於楊屋道/葵芳來往荔景就多數搭小巴
本帖最後由 Anthony99 於 2019-7-10 11:14 編輯
去年我EMAIL俾運吉關於敬祖路打回原形問題, 運吉回應係唔會對敬祖路有任何改善工程, 即係30,45,46,269M係祖堯重建前不會用12M車
23/10/2018
Subject:敬祖路用車限制 (Case Ref: 2-4763037333)
Dear X,
Regarding your case dated 15/09/2018, the reply of the Transport Department is as follows –
"In accordance with Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations, except for franchised buses and vehicles with valid permit, all vehicles exceeding 10 metres in length or the gross vehicle weight over 23 tonnes are currently restricted to enter the subject road sections of King Cho Road, Joint Street and Wah Yiu Road.Otherwise, one may be prosecuted.
In response to bus company’s request to use 12m long buses for travelling on King Cho Road, this Department conducted two 12m bus trial runs with bus company on King Cho Road on 20 December 2017 and 5 January 2018.The bus company has deployed 12m long buses of different models for the trial runs.During the two trial runs, it was observed that all buses had encroached upon and beyond the existing double white lines and moved onto the footpath when maneuvering along the bend sections near the OUHK - CITA Lai King Learning Centre and the Cho Yiu Catholic Primary School.
Please note that most if not all alignment and configuration of a section of road is unique, such as their combination of curvature, width of carriageway, speed limit, location of pedestrian crossing, vehicular access, public transport facility, etc.Therefore, in principle any traffic management measures to be imposed on each road section should be considered on individual merit.
Nevertheless, this Department had conducted a review on the alignment of King Cho Road to see whether any improvement works could be carried out to facilitate the use of 12m buses.Due to the existing constraints, such as horizontal and vertical curvatures, the existing slopes and developments, local accesses, public transport facilities, etc., widening of King Cho Road for 12m long bus was considered not technically feasible / highly undesirable.This revealed that 12m long vehicle travelling on King Cho Road would cause potential hazard to other road users. Therefore, bus company’s proposal on using 12m buses on King Cho Road was not supported.
Thank you for your kind attention on regional traffic matters."
If you have any enquiries, please contact us.
Best regards,
Kong Chau Wong
Customer Service Officer
1823
Anthony99 發表於 2019-7-9 17:54
去年我EMAIL俾運吉關於敬祖路打回原形問題, 運吉回應係唔會對敬祖路有任何改善工程, 即係30,45,36,269M係祖 ...
即係兩邊出入口都不宜12米...冇得救lu...
唔知算唔算係...2018年2月那單野間接地引發後遺症所致?!