Originally posted by carbikebus:If im the depot manager if i receive 20 new DDs i will keep 8 for sp,You wouldnt know which WAB bus svc involve in an accidents or breakdowns and also svc getting DDs right?
Ok. I was talking purely BSEP not PTO operations.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Ok. I was talking purely BSEP not PTO operations.
Thats why i say Bsep also need sp mah
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Ok. I was talking purely BSEP not PTO operations.
My opinion to your point is that even BSEP buses breakdown as well...but I also feel that there are too many Enviro500s not yet settled on perms, more than the amount of BSEP spares needed.
But then again, do I suspect the format for BSEP buses in SgWiki mislead you in one way or another?
Winding feeder routes: I call those feeders winding that do not go directly to MRT but instead loop around other estates before going to MRT. I have seen such services are not favored by commuters and often do not enjoy good patronage.
229: only service connecting HDBs at Bedok South road (UEC side)... Yet goes via chai chee before going to mrt
282: service for west st 2 residents goes via ave 2, 5, 4 before reaching MRT.
333: service winds Via Toh guan, IMM and Jurong town hall before going to MRT. St 32 residents prefer to walk and take 99/334 instead. Jurong East Ave 1 residents also rely solely on 98. Hence 333 does not help relieve loads on either services.
Winding feeder routes that do enjoy good loading but still have winding routes.
300: super high loading but 90% loading corms from ave 4, 5 residents. Those along ave 2/3 seldom take given long winding nature of route. Bad part is ave 2 residents don't have another option but to walk long distance and take LRT or bus 67/188
315: very high loading but for SGN north ave 1 residents as well as ave 5 residents, it's a raw deal considering bus winds around chomp chomp, boundary road before going to MRT. Would have been good if 116 plied SGN north ave 1 instead.
325: winding route for HG st 91/93 residents to MRT who seldom take It.. Would rather walk and take 72 to MRT instead. Also route winds via ave 10/2/upper SGN road... Though given MRT access at ave 10 not major issue
372: route has v high loading between Anchorvale and SGK MRT but very low between Anchorvale and PGL road.
just few of my observations...
Hi. May I ask that when DTL 2 & 3 opens, will there be bus rationalisation phases like when NEL opened about a decade ago?
Originally posted by mwhale7886:Hi. May I ask that when DTL 2 & 3 opens, will there be bus rationalisation phases like when NEL opened about a decade ago?
DTL 2 - Jan 2016
DTL 3 - Jan 2018
my guess is for some time services will continue to operate as they are. After observation on loading, LTA can take a call to modify/merge/withdraw services. It should not be done hastily and at least 6 months breathing period should b there before any changes are made.
Did DTL1 impact any services? I still see Sv 2/12 getting good loading between Chinatown and Bugis...
Not sure if dtl1 is very successful as of now coz trains are relatively quite empty. Once DTL 2 opens... Loading will bump up...
Bro DTL2 is first quarter of 2016. Maybe jan. Feb or mar
Hmm so the BSEP buses do have spare buses? oO So it should be reflected on wiki instead of blank right? LOL..
Sooner no need BSEP SP buses cause all buses will belong to LTA,Lol
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Winding feeder routes: I call those feeders winding that do not go directly to MRT but instead loop around other estates before going to MRT. I have seen such services are not favored by commuters and often do not enjoy good patronage.
229: only service connecting HDBs at Bedok South road (UEC side)... Yet goes via chai chee before going to mrt
282: service for west st 2 residents goes via ave 2, 5, 4 before reaching MRT.
333: service winds Via Toh guan, IMM and Jurong town hall before going to MRT. St 32 residents prefer to walk and take 99/334 instead. Jurong East Ave 1 residents also rely solely on 98. Hence 333 does not help relieve loads on either services.
Winding feeder routes that do enjoy good loading but still have winding routes.
300: super high loading but 90% loading corms from ave 4, 5 residents. Those along ave 2/3 seldom take given long winding nature of route. Bad part is ave 2 residents don't have another option but to walk long distance and take LRT or bus 67/188
315: very high loading but for SGN north ave 1 residents as well as ave 5 residents, it's a raw deal considering bus winds around chomp chomp, boundary road before going to MRT. Would have been good if 116 plied SGN north ave 1 instead.
325: winding route for HG st 91/93 residents to MRT who seldom take It.. Would rather walk and take 72 to MRT instead. Also route winds via ave 10/2/upper SGN road... Though given MRT access at ave 10 not major issue
372: route has v high loading between Anchorvale and SGK MRT but very low between Anchorvale and PGL road.
just few of my observations...
For 229 its Chai Chee St/Rd leg has to do with its roots of being a ex-Chai Chee Ter sv. But you can't possibly leave Chai Chee St (between Chai Chee Rd & Bedok North Ave 1) w/o a bus sv right, just like how you complained of other areas such as Haig Rd with no bus sv? Only 229 serves that sector presently (222 enters from New Upp Changi Rd and Chai Chee Rd and turn left to Chai Chee St).
For 282 maybe they should have just left sv287 behind in the 1980s and withdraw sv282, showing that routes in the past may not fit usage nowadays.
For 300 add 975 as an alternative for Ave 3 side, which partially causes the overcrowding of sv975 during weekdays peak.
For 315 I'd say leave the North Ave 1 part around. At least commuters in S'goon Gdn can get home (to Sgn North Ave 1) directly w/o trf at S'goon Int to your "proposed 116."
For 325 the "winding part" between Hougang Ave 10, Ave 2 and Upp S'goon Rd was added during NEL bus rationalization. Redundant move made by the authorities then.
For 333 I agree, but at least the alternatives are there for Toh Guan Rd residents. 41, 52, 105, 990.
For 372 the Punggol Rd leg was only added in 2007 lol. I agree that that sector has a lot of room for improvement in terms of demand.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Winding feeder routes that do enjoy good loading but still have winding routes.
300: super high loading but 90% loading corms from ave 4, 5 residents. Those along ave 2/3 seldom take given long winding nature of route. Bad part is ave 2 residents don't have another option but to walk long distance and take LRT or bus 67/188
When the new flats at Ave 5/Old Keat Hong Camp are completed, 300 may be split up to have 2 separate svcs looping at Ave 5 and Ave 2. That whole area at the old Keat Hong Camp will likely see several new routes under BSEP.
While we have many existing feeder routes that are long and winding due to svcs being merged or amended to cover more areas in the past, the trend nowadays seems to be shorter and more direct feeder svcs connecting a specific area to the nearest bus int/MRT. Though I agree that some existing routes can be amended to be more direct, LTA may prefer to just leave them alone.
Originally posted by SBS7557R:For 229 its Chai Chee St/Rd leg has to do with its roots of being a ex-Chai Chee Ter sv. But you can't possibly leave Chai Chee St (between Chai Chee Rd & Bedok North Ave 1) w/o a bus sv right, just like how you complained of other areas such as Haig Rd with no bus sv? Only 229 serves that sector presently (222 enters from New Upp Changi Rd and Chai Chee Rd and turn left to Chai Chee St).
For 282 maybe they should have just left sv287 behind in the 1980s and withdraw sv282, showing that routes in the past may not fit usage nowadays.
For 300 add 975 as an alternative for Ave 3 side, which partially causes the overcrowding of sv975 during weekdays peak.
For 315 I'd say leave the North Ave 1 part around. At least commuters in S'goon Gdn can get home (to Sgn North Ave 1) directly w/o trf at S'goon Int to your "proposed 116."
For 325 the "winding part" between Hougang Ave 10, Ave 2 and Upp S'goon Rd was added during NEL bus rationalization. Redundant move made by the authorities then.
For 333 I agree, but at least the alternatives are there for Toh Guan Rd residents. 41, 52, 105, 990.
For 372 the Punggol Rd leg was only added in 2007 lol. I agree that that sector has a lot of room for improvement in terms of demand.
On 229: I agree that we cannot possibly have Chai Chee St/rd without a service and 229 is historical. I get that as well. My proposal would be to have another service ply Chai Chee St / Rd.
Proposal 1: Have Sv 9 or Sv 35 diverted via New Upper Changi Rd, Chai Chee Rd, Chai Chee St before entering Bedok Interchange. Advantage: No commuters upset as ppl take this service from Bedok MRT stop rather than interchange. Also provides connectivity to Tanah Merah, Bedok Sports Complex to Chai Chee residents. Cons: None.
Proposal 2: Have Sv 26 enter Chai Chee before terminating at Bedok Interchange. Advantage: Chai Chee residents get direct connection to Eunos, Geylang areas. Cons: since it is trunk service with not very good frequency, Chai Chee residents could get stranded to get to MRT. This still could be a supplementary service given current 26 is quite redundant in its route.
Proposal 3: New service 224 from Bedok Interchange, New Upper Changi Rd, Chai Chee Rd, Chai Chee St, Bedok Interchange. Pros: New direct service with enhanced frequency. 3 Citaros under BSEP enough. Will also benefit new Chai Chee BTO with an stop for 222/224 on Chai Chee rd. Cons: None.
With any of these 3 proposals, 229 can serve residents of Bedok South road more efficiently providing direct connectivity and lesser commute time.
Originally posted by 201911:When the new flats at Ave 5/Old Keat Hong Camp are completed, 300 may be split up to have 2 separate svcs looping at Ave 5 and Ave 2. That whole area at the old Keat Hong Camp will likely see several new routes under BSEP.
While we have many existing feeder routes that are long and winding due to svcs being merged or amended to cover more areas in the past, the trend nowadays seems to be shorter and more direct feeder svcs connecting a specific area to the nearest bus int/MRT. Though I agree that some existing routes can be amended to be more direct, LTA may prefer to just leave them alone.
Keat Hong area will need a short trunk like Sv 860 connecting both CCK and BPJ via Keat Hong. Should also have a trunk service connecting Bukit Batok area to Keat Hong. I will also prefer if Sv 700 is extended to CCK via Keat Hong, providing direct city access. So def I suspect and recommend 2-3 services.
Start a new trunk svc from Bt Batok via Keat Hong,300 route and terminate at CCK..1st & 2nd direction 10km each..Can put a couple of DDs too..Then the DDs would be put into good use not just overcrowing at lower deck..LTA can also extend long distance feeders/Intratown by a few KMs so that DDs can be use instead of bendy buses..811,812,911,912,913 can be extended to another 3-5 km
Ever since SBST change those ugly round tiny headlights i lost fond of the unique bus..
Hope to see Euro VI ADL E500/E300,MB Citaro II and newer buses by the new operator..
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:in this new year 2015, i hope to see the order of A95 buses and Euro 6 buses.
Hoping for the same..
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:in this new year 2015, i hope to see the order of A95 buses and Euro 6 buses.
I also hope the new A24 bendies will be brought in this year as well.
Aktive PM is a revolutionary, age defying, cream serum, with a scientifically advanced formula that works for all skin types.
The active ingredients inside Aktive PM penetrate deeply for astonishing, youthful results! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Aktive-PM/787846564622207
What are the amazing benefits of Aktive AM? Aging skin sags and wrinkles as it loses the collagen and elastin that were once present in higher levels during youth.
Originally posted by mwhale7886:I also hope the new A24 bendies will be brought in this year as well.
Haven't heard any news on the A24s for a long time. Someone said 2-3 months back that they saw these getting assembled... where are they?
Even if a few units is ready,where the hell they wanna park those 18m monsters?They need to deregistered a few box bendy buses first.
Originally posted by carbikebus:Even if a few units is ready,where the hell they wanna park those 18m monsters?They need to deregistered a few box bendy buses first.
That doesn't really help then... SMRT needs to beef up capacity of its feeders/intra-towns. If the A24s are merely for one-to-one replacement, then all the feeder/intra-towns are never going to get more high capacity buses.
Even after launching DDs... if you see the number of bendies have reduced even on critical services like 300... 300 which was a full bendy service got fleet adds of only SDs and today you have 4-5 SDs on this service daily... its pathetic IMO.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:That doesn't really help then... SMRT needs to beef up capacity of its feeders/intra-towns. If the A24s are merely for one-to-one replacement, then all the feeder/intra-towns are never going to get more high capacity buses.
Even after launching DDs... if you see the number of bendies have reduced even on critical services like 300... 300 which was a full bendy service got fleet adds of only SDs and today you have 4-5 SDs on this service daily... its pathetic IMO.
That's why using DDs solely is still the most desirable solution for space-crunch Singapore, even if it has its disadvantages when deployed on short trunk and feeder routes like sv300. Encouraging more commuters to move to the upper deck may not be easy, but at least it's achievable.