Why Singapore need DDs & why it's impractical to use bendies
-
I think someone here is not happy because integrated public tpt hub design has decided not to fit in the bendy buses..
-
Originally posted by TIB433S:
Even with this objective view, I would think there would still be a need for bendy buses. Especially for feeder/intratown/townlink and short inter-town routes, these kind of buses are more useful than double deckers. Why? Over a shorter distance, who would be willing to move up and down stairs of a bus? A bendy bus would be more practical, due to the accessibility to more doors. Also useful for high-loading services which may be unable to use doubledecks due to height restrictions.
Double-decks on the other hand should be used for the longer-distance routes, as there would be a higher chance of people staying onboard for a longer ride.
But of course, even with the bendy bus being only a memory soon, it would be nice to see more come in.. Only a dream.. Soon, we shall be like London..It is not true that people don't want to move to the upper deck. It applies only if it is 2 stops or so. Look at 291, 334 DDs are so well utilized with people moving to the upper deck. I have noticed a problem with 132 where people cramp onto the lower deck from Henderson road to Redhill. But on most routes, the upper deck is well utilized and if standing was allowed, people would have stood on upper deck, too.
-
Originally posted by No_10_Tomas:
I find something puzzling
Bendies were first deployed in 1996
From 1996-1997, there were 57 bendies Mk 1 deployed.
In 1999, came 29 bendies Mk 2
From 2000 onwards, 229 habits/volgrens were rolled out.
Throughout a spell of 4 years from 1996 to 2000, the 86 or so bendies must have fetched a favourable response from the public in order for LTA to approve the further procurement of 229 more bendies in 2000!!!
If bendies were really that detestful, why didn't the public vehemently oppose it from 1996 to 2000?
You said it 1996 to 2000. Population back then isn't even 4 million. 1996 was about 3.2 million. Now we have already 5 million and will increase further in years to come.
You think they are still practical now? You only see the picture of 4 years but you never see the picture of 12 years after that. Many complains of high accident rates, burn down rates, taking up too much space in bus interchanges, bus stops and bus lanes and delaying the schedules of other buses, parking woes in depots surfacing for the past 12 years.
Things look new and good in the early days but the real problems will only come in many years after. Everyone like new things but once these things give a lot of real problems after that, you will see that it is just a fad or became another history up in the books.
-
Too bad TIBS already bring in bendies..
-
back in 1996, bendies were the novelty.
I still remember its first appearence on 911. It was fun.
Until I saw a 913 BC who thought he was driving 911 and made the left turn after the 1st stop after leaving WRI.
He tried to do a 3 point turn at the carpark and that led to a HUGE traffic jam.
Isolated incident it is...but I have little doubt that a SD or DD would have taken far less time.
-
but Tibs did lots of disasterous decision as come to think of it..
1) bendy bus
2) EDS number formatting as though we're left hand drive.
3) Buses that can't carry much standee, and ppl hard to move about along e aisle.. That's why the MAN bus problem.
4) Colourful fleet: now maintenance got taiji.. End up CRL placed on higher demand svs bla bla bla..
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
but Tibs did lots of disasterous decision as come to think of it..
1) bendy bus
2) EDS number formatting as though we're left hand drive.
3) Buses that can't carry much standee, and ppl hard to move about along e aisle.. That's why the MAN bus problem.
4) Colourful fleet: now maintenance got taiji.. End up CRL placed on higher demand svs bla bla bla..
TIBS remove its seats for standee for MBO405 and DAFs..
Citaro also same as MAN what.. -
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
It is not true that people don't want to move to the upper deck. It applies only if it is 2 stops or so. Look at 291, 334 DDs are so well utilized with people moving to the upper deck. I have noticed a problem with 132 where people cramp onto the lower deck from Henderson road to Redhill. But on most routes, the upper deck is well utilized and if standing was allowed, people would have stood on upper deck, too.
My main point is that with double decks for such short-haul routes, I would feel that the time taken at bus stops would also be longer, as people would have to only rely on one main exit door of the bus, unlike a bendy bus which has two.
Double-decks are well-utilised for the trunk services, I have no qualms about them. Why, if SMRT would be willing to use them for routes such as 75, 190, 700, 965, 966 or 969, I would welcome it.
But I would assume feeders would do better as people tend to travel shorter distances, but carry slightly more passengers than a 12m rigid.
I think... the reason why many people are against the bendy buses is because of SMRT's crap management.. that has tarnished the reputation of the bendy bus. -
Not to mention chap-par-lang fleet.
Hodge-podge fleet makes for manteinance nightmare.......
And TIBS had little standardisation.
Anybody recalls the cute blue desto for the Lance?
And I dont know which smart guy chose the cloth seats for the TIBS buses.....after a while the buses all stank to the high heavens!
-
Originally posted by TIB433S:
I think... the reason why many people are against the bendy buses is because of SMRT's crap management.. that has tarnished the reputation of the bendy bus.
Yeah. If SBST bought bendies, confirm they will say that its good..
-
Originally posted by TIB1218R:
Yeah. If SBST bought bendies, confirm they will say that its good..
My one regret was that I kept putting off taking the B10MA.....and then it got sold.
-
not surprising
Tibs founder now NTUC Fairprice's Chair....
Now open hypermart at Changi Business Park... lol
-
There are plenty of rumours abound about "creative accounting" with regards to TIBS.
Shan't say more.
But it does say something when SMRT acknowledged continued losses with SMRTB.
TIBS was clearly not raking in plenty of dough.
-
modern buses will come with lesser seats
With the emphasize now towards the concept of hub-and-spoke and bus-to-train intermodal transfer, the average travelling time has reduced as compared to the 1970s and early 1980s before MRT train was introduced
Most of the bus journeys undertook by the passengers normally won't exceed 30 minutes
Gone were the days when passengers need to spend well over an entire hour on their buses to travel from one estate to another estate in singapore
In singapore context, if passengers were to choose between comfort and punctuality, i believe they will opt for punctuality..they just want the bus to arrive quickly and fetch them to the train stations in the shortest time possible
sitting is no longer a neccessity for short-distanced journey, especially when the distance-based fare computation is already in place, many smart bus experts who are well-versed with every bus route know how to make multiple transfer from their origin to destination
i wonder if the 2-by-1 front facing seating configuration is still necessary, in fact i'm advocating a 1-by-1 single seat arrangement to free up more standing space, or all sideway seating configuration just like MRT
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
not surprising
Tibs founder now NTUC Fairprice's Chair....
Now open hypermart at Changi Business Park... lol
You should go shopping at that hypermart....I've been there. Awesome huge place.
Not to mention plenty of shoes to look at, at the new shopping centre.
-
Originally posted by No_10_Tomas:
modern buses will come with lesser seats
With the emphasize now towards the concept of hub-and-spoke and bus-to-train intermodal transfer, the average travelling time has reduced as compared to the 1970s and early 1980s before MRT train was introduced
Most of the bus journeys undertook by the passengers normally won't exceed 30 minutes
Gone were the days when passengers need to spend well over an entire hour on their buses to travel from one estate to another estate in singapore
In singapore context, if passengers were to choose between comfort and punctuality, i believe they will opt for punctuality..they just want the bus to arrive quickly and fetch them to the train stations in the shortest time possible
sitting is no longer a neccessity for short-distanced journey, especially when the distance-based fare computation is already in place, many smart bus experts who are well-versed with every bus route know how to make multiple transfer from their origin to destination
i wonder if the 2-by-1 front facing seating configuration is still necessary, in fact i'm advocating a 1-by-1 single seat arrangement to free up more standing space, or all sideway seating configuration just like MRT
I'm sorry.
But if you wanna stand, please get yourself a flintstone-style car.
I want to sit down.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
You should go shopping at that hypermart....I've been there. Awesome huge place.
Not to mention plenty of shoes to look at, at the new shopping centre.
Where is that place ?
-
Originally posted by TIB1218R:
Where is that place ?
Opposite Expo.
There's factory outlets inside....so plenty of things to look at if one wishes to buy shoes and clothes.
-
Originally posted by No_10_Tomas:
modern buses will come with lesser seats
With the emphasize now towards the concept of hub-and-spoke and bus-to-train intermodal transfer, the average travelling time has reduced as compared to the 1970s and early 1980s before MRT train was introduced
Most of the bus journeys undertook by the passengers normally won't exceed 30 minutes
Gone were the days when passengers need to spend well over an entire hour on their buses to travel from one estate to another estate in singapore
In singapore context, if passengers were to choose between comfort and punctuality, i believe they will opt for punctuality..they just want the bus to arrive quickly and fetch them to the train stations in the shortest time possible
sitting is no longer a neccessity for short-distanced journey, especially when the distance-based fare computation is already in place, many smart bus experts who are well-versed with every bus route know how to make multiple transfer from their origin to destination
i wonder if the 2-by-1 front facing seating configuration is still necessary, in fact i'm advocating a 1-by-1 single seat arrangement to free up more standing space, or all sideway seating configuration just like MRT
I believe not many people are happy about the hub and spoke concept nowadays because of the mulitple transfers they have to make just to get from point A to point B.
Why are so many incidents of people fighting over seats recently? I don't think having lesser seats is suitable for our context. Think of all those working long hours everyday as well, do you think they like to stand for the whole trip and transfer many times just to go to work and go home? And not many are smart experts, which in fact, most commuters want the simpliest way to get from point A to B.
Even if with a hub and spoke concept, I believe maintaining a full single decker fleet is good enough. They are flexible and bus stops can hold at least 2 buses of different services at the same time which is faster and more efficient.
-
Originally posted by No_10_Tomas:
A lot of places with height restriction also
Services which do not have DDs,
3, 11, 15, 16, 18, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 48, 53, 57, 63, 66, 73, 82, 83, 84, 85, 92, 94, 100, 101, 103, 105, 123, 124, 125, 128, 130, 131, 135, 138, 142, 145, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 170, 175, 191, 194, 195, 200, 226, 228, 231, 232, 235, 238, 261, 262, 265, 268, 269, 272, 273, 275, 282, 284, 292, 293, 315, 317, 325, 333, 335, 354, 358, 359, 372, 400, 401, 402, 403, 405, 410
3 cause of narrow roads which 3 axles got a bit problem let alone bendy.11 use DD for what?18 route can use DD but loads dun justify.Airport svc u mention for what?Wanna become James Bond hantam all the roof?Its more of the building design.40,42 duh dun be surprised AMK feeders and Intratown use DDs one day
-
Originally posted by TIB1218R:
Where is that place ?
Eh u wanna chartered smrt bendy go there or not?
-
Originally posted by vicamour:
I believe not many people are happy about the hub and spoke concept nowadays because of the mulitple transfers they have to make just to get from point A to point B.
Why are so many incidents of people fighting over seats recently? I don't think having lesser seats is suitable for our context. Think of all those working long hours everyday as well, do you think they like to stand for the whole trip and transfer many times just to go to work and go home? And not many are smart experts, which in fact, most commuters want the simpliest way to get from point A to B.
Even if with a hub and spoke concept, I believe maintaining a full single decker fleet is good enough. They are flexible and bus stops can hold at least 2 buses of different services at the same time which is faster and more efficient.
I tell u if they really maintain 100% SDs in future they will be whining "We did consider close down bus business cause our buses can't cope with loads",They need DDs be it 2 or 3 axles.Oh but wait what if they jee Siao go and venture other shuttle svc?Then their Gugujiao type of maintenance leh?
-
the problem with woodlands interchange is that there are too many bus services with bendies while Sembawang and Bt Panjang Int is under-utilized
and a lot of routes towards Woodlands are actually parallel, which you may wonder if it's really neccessary since the distance-based fare computation is already in place
eg.
From Bt Panjang to Woodlands Interchange via Woodlands Road, Ave 3, we have 960 and 961 parallel, one of them could be truncated to terminate at Bt Panjang Int instead, preferably 960 since it got bendies
From Bt Panjang to Woodlands Interchange via BKE, Wdls Ave 3, we have 187, 963 and 966 exactly parallel. Two of the three could be truncated to terminate at Bt Panjang Int instead.
From Gambas Ave to Woodlands Interchange via Ave 7, we have 965 and 969 parallel, one of them could be amended to terminate at Sembawang Interchange instead, preferably 969
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
3 cause of narrow roads which 3 axles got a bit problem let alone bendy.11 use DD for what?18 route can use DD but loads dun justify.Airport svc u mention for what?Wanna become James Bond hantam all the roof?Its more of the building design.40,42 duh dun be surprised AMK feeders and Intratown use DDs one day
Originally posted by No_10_Tomas:A lot of places with height restriction also
Services which do not have DDs,
3, 11, 15, 16, 18, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 48, 53, 57, 63, 66, 73, 82, 83, 84, 85, 92, 94, 100, 101, 103, 105, 123, 124, 125, 128, 130, 131, 135, 138, 142, 145, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 170, 175, 191, 194, 195, 200, 226, 228, 231, 232, 235, 238, 261, 262, 265, 268, 269, 272, 273, 275, 282, 284, 292, 293, 315, 317, 325, 333, 335, 354, 358, 359, 372, 400, 401, 402, 403, 405, 410
You fail to realise that most route's demands don't need double deckers as they are not so high to justify the use of double deckers while others is more of the road width limitations.
And some routes did use double deckers before, like 94 while some withdrawn double deckers from the service beacuse demand is low, like 18, 29, 63, 82, 130, 135, 358, 359.Originally posted by No_10_Tomas:the problem with woodlands interchange is that there are too many bus services with bendies while Sembawang and Bt Panjang Int is under-utilized
and a lot of routes towards Woodlands are actually parallel, which you may wonder if it's really neccessary since the distance-based fare computation is already in place
eg.
From Bt Panjang to Woodlands Interchange via Woodlands Road, Ave 3, we have 960 and 961 parallel, one of them could be truncated to terminate at Bt Panjang Int instead, preferably 960 since it got bendies
From Bt Panjang to Woodlands Interchange via BKE, Wdls Ave 3, we have 187, 963 and 966 exactly parallel. Two of the three could be truncated to terminate at Bt Panjang Int instead.
From Gambas Ave to Woodlands Interchange via Ave 7, we have 965 and 969 parallel, one of them could be amended to terminate at Sembawang Interchange instead, preferably 969
You want to cut these bus routes but first you need to get feedbacks first. Sure will come in tons of complains with these kind of cuts.People want more choices to get to their destinations as well. Cutting them means limiting their choices. not wise.
However some extensions are already disasterous, as in the case for 858 to Sembawang.
-
Originally posted by No_10_Tomas:
From Gambas Ave to Woodlands Interchange via Ave 7, we have 965 and 969 parallel, one of them could be amended to terminate at Sembawang Interchange instead, preferably 969
Some people took 965 and 969 from Admiralty to Sengkang and Tampines..