Diskusné fórum › Všeobecná diskusia

Popravde, neviem si celkom predstaviť, na akej relácii naprieč mesto by bolo vhodné mať linku s polhodinovým (mimo špičky; a to sa navyše bavíme i celom zväzku) intervalom obsluhovanú dvojdverovými vozidlami s prímestským interiérom, na ktorej jazdnú dobu 120 minútovú medzi komerčnými vplývajú všetky možné dopravné nástrahy. Ani taký príklad nikde z iných systémov nepoznám.

Ešte keby sme sa bavili o nejakej lokálnej obsluhe, napr. 540 by z Rače smerovala na Rendez a nahradila 52 alebo 56, tam by tie rozdiely až taky vplyv nemali.

Interval by sa mohol predĺžiť na 10 minút. A každý druhý trolejbus by po dobudovaní trolejbusovej trate mohol ísť až k Avionu.

"The racks are there for passengers to put their luggage there. If they don't put it there, they take up space and reduce passenger capacity."

This is technically true, but how often do passengers actually put their luggage on there? If they're sitting right next to the racks, then sure, but if you can't see them and touch them then you're not likely to leave your stuff there where it could be stolen.

Zadné police až tak nezavadzaju. Tie sú aj tak na podeste/motore. Vpredu su zase extrémne velke. Ten čo určoval interiér bol značne mimo reality.

Osobne si nemyslím, že treba obnoviť 64. Treba skôr posilniť 60.

Ak na opačnej konečnej je potok v dosahu (Cífer, žel.st., Chorvátsky Grob, nám. ... )

regiobusy premávajúce cez Bajkakskú by to mali podľa mňa zajedno. Predĺžilo by sa to len pre regiobusy 7xx a bolo by nutné poriešiť zákaz odbočenia zo šancovej od Hlst na Raččiansku.

Ale potom máš napr. takú konečnú Cífer, žel.st., kde prestávkuje nie až tak riedko obsluhovaná linka, ale v okolí je akurát staničné WC zdieľané s verejnosťou a najbližšia možnosť kúpiť si niečo na jedenie sa je až tu https://maps.app.goo.gl/GXwdzkzyuCvch85SA
alebo tu: https://maps.app.goo.gl/GXwdzkzyuCvch85SA
alebo tu: https://maps.app.goo.gl/euoTByPdueYa5A3e6
Potom sa nečudujem, že som x-krát videl odstavené 565-ky na zastávke Cífer, centrum smer žst, kde je tých možností viac a v dosahu max. 2 minúty.

Náhodou nedávno kvôli výluke aspoň jednosmerne trolejbusová linka 61 obchádzala Trnávku. Nemotala sa uličkami. Možno by to dala obojsmerne, neviem či by sa trakčné akumulátory stihli dobíjať. Ale asi áno, takže trasovanie bude šetrenie a "žmýkanie" kilometrov aby si z nich mal čo najväčší úžitok. "Letiskoví" cestujúci nie sú prioritou.

Z príspevkov ako aj z praxe vidno, že tu naozaj magistrát prinútil DPB k nezmyselnému šetreniu. Ja som od začiatku nechápal, prečo sa nezatrolejovala celá Galvaniho a ten kúsok na Rožňavskej, aby sa t-61 vyhla Trnávke, kde by zostala obsluha pôvodnými linkami 60 a 64. Linka na letisko má viesť čo najrýchlejšie z Hlavnej stanice a oboch uzlov (Račianske a Trnavské mýto) na letisko a nemá čo vykonávať lokálnu obsluhu Trnávky. Trpí tým aj Trnávka, keď sa t-61 naplní letiskovými pasažiermi, nemajú sa už šancu do trolejbusu zmestiť. Je treba čo najrýchlejšie napraviť tento "fail"! Absurdné, že sa nevybudoval aspoň triangel na X Bulharská - Rádiová, opäť šetrenie na nepravom mieste. Ale i bez toho, treba vrátiť na Trnávku t-64, resp. po novom t-32. Alebo ešte lepšie dobudovať spojku na Hl.st., kam by jazdila t-32 a na Trnávku vrátiť t-64, aspoň v krátkych vozoch. A t-60 viesť až k Avionu, až sa to dobuduje! Ďalej zatrolejovať t-40 až k novému SND, aby sa 27Tr mohli "venovať" čisto t-61. A vymontovať aspoň tie zadné police z 27Tr!

Na druhej strane, ak by si na tie police hodil matrace, môže to zachádzať na Mokráň.

The racks are there for passengers to put their luggage there. If they don't put it there, they take up space and reduce passenger capacity. It also makes no sense to remove these racks, since the vehicles that are used on line 61 are also used on line 40 to the Bus Station, which makes these vehicles used by tourists and residents with permanent residence outside of Bratislava. In addition to the vehicles that had these racks removed, DPB removed them to increase passenger capacity in the vehicle, because these buses run on lines on which passengers occasionally carry luggage. These buses originally ran on line 61 to the airport, later they were replaced by trolleybuses.

Police podľa mňa neodmontujú, pretože by tým priznali, že sú nezmyselne vymyslené. Pre mňa bolo celkom nepochopiteľné, že sa tento koncept použil aj pre trolejbusy. Už pri autobusoch to bolo dosť kritizované, že nikto si nebude umiestňovať batožinu mimo svoj (nielen očný) dosah, najmä na takejto linke s veľkou výmenou cestujúcich v krajine, kde sa ukradne všetko, čo nie je napevno primontované.

Maybe a perfect time to undo the shortening of route 64.

Adding a single extra bus line definitely won’t solve the problem, especially if it’s operated by a different carrier.

I’d like to come back to the topic of luggage racks. A few months ago, it was mentioned that some vehicles had them removed, which increased standing space. Would it be possible to do something similar in the trolleybuses on line 61, given that these racks are rarely used? Most passengers prefer to keep their luggage with their seat rather than place it somewhere they can hardly see when the vehicle is crowded.

Removing these racks would at least partially increase capacity. If the vehicle structure allows it, it might also be worth considering adding extra doors that open outwards, so passengers have enough space while standing and don’t have to move aside when doors open. I believe this would be much cheaper than buying new vehicles.

In addition, implementing these changes could actually encourage more people to return to their cars. Even passengers traveling to the airport from other towns or countries might be more likely to use personal vehicles if the public transport options remain crowded and inconvenient.

For the time being they deployed a reserve bus at the airport which is supposed to run extra services to boost capacity when needed. While it does help a bit, it is far from sufficient for a variety of reasons. There is no public information about anything meaningful being planned, although I'm sure they will eventually be forced to do something.

The capacity of line 61 is on edge thanks to line 64 being shorter so majority of people where 61 goes have to use this line instead. In the past, 64 went directly to Trnavka and was sharing the route with 61 in almost its full lenght, providing better capacity especially in rush hours.

Otherwise, it wouldnt be that bad in my opinion.

How is the Bratislava Transport Company planning to deal with the capacity of line 61?

With some of Ryanair’s and Wizz Air’s flights being moved from Vienna to Bratislava, the load on this line has noticeably increased. Lately, I’ve repeatedly had a very unpleasant experience travelling on it, most recently yesterday.

The long trolleybuses with luggage racks have a really cramped interior – partly because of these racks, and partly because the doors open inwards.

Yesterday, on top of that, a short trolleybus – probably from the backup fleet – was put on the line. Considering the current passenger numbers, it was absolutely inadequate and travelling was extremely uncomfortable.

I believe that with the ongoing growth in passengers, especially due to the frequent and convenient flights from Bratislava, the situation needs to be looked at systemically. This is not just my personal experience – I’ve heard similar complaints from several friends who regularly commute to and from the airport for work.

If line 61 is still to serve as a main connection to the airport, its capacity and operational setup probably deserve a serious discussion.

Porno obrazky sem posielal/a