How to improve our Public Transport system?
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Yes. I think it is good for each neighbourhood to have its dedicated basic bus svc straight to the city. Full day everyday. Instead of serving so many neighbourhoods at one go. This should attract drivers.
I understand your point is to provide fast services into the city at fares comparable or even lower than MRT.
However, a bus can only pick up a max of 100 (on a dd) while a train could move 1000 easily and yet still have better frequency than the bus.
Going head to head with the trains is fatal, they cost less to run, carry more pax, and often is faster. Only way i see that buses can compete is to be faster.
The govt see this too, and thus they are implementing CityDirect services from places which are more "ulu" and go straight into the city.
But how sustainable is this? For e.g. the contract for CityDirect 651 costs 1mil, while having only 4 trips per working day. Per calculations by another forumer, this is about $500 per trip.
Even if you fill the entire bus with 100 pax which is impossible, thats only $230 of farebox collection with a loss of $270 for each trip. Good for the consumer, but bad for the govt and taxpayers.
And SMRT wont run this kind of bus services from any of their areas served by their trains, and neither will SBST. Why would they spend money to snatch customers away from their own trains?
At the end of the day, its left with LTA to do it, at a signficant loss using the BSEP funds.
And finally to make everything I just said completely useless, if you look at LTMP2013 page 46, you will see that cars driving into CBD has stayed more or less constant between 75 to 80 thousand within the last 8 years even though there was almost 150 thousand cars added in the same period.
This means that the problem is not with people going into the city, but rather commuting outside the city. No point to have buses straight into the city to tempt car owners not to drive then!
-
It's time to huat.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
I understand your point is to provide fast services into the city at fares comparable or even lower than MRT.
However, a bus can only pick up a max of 100 (on a dd) while a train could move 1000 easily and yet still have better frequency than the bus.
Going head to head with the trains is fatal, they cost less to run, carry more pax, and often is faster. Only way i see that buses can compete is to be faster.
The govt see this too, and thus they are implementing CityDirect services from places which are more "ulu" and go straight into the city.
But how sustainable is this? For e.g. the contract for CityDirect 651 costs 1mil, while having only 4 trips per working day. Per calculations by another forumer, this is about $500 per trip.
Even if you fill the entire bus with 100 pax which is impossible, thats only $230 of farebox collection with a loss of $270 for each trip. Good for the consumer, but bad for the govt and taxpayers.
And SMRT wont run this kind of bus services from any of their areas served by their trains, and neither will SBST. Why would they spend money to snatch customers away from their own trains?
At the end of the day, its left with LTA to do it, at a signficant loss using the BSEP funds.
And finally to make everything I just said completely useless, if you look at LTMP2013 page 46, you will see that cars driving into CBD has stayed more or less constant between 75 to 80 thousand within the last 8 years even though there was almost 150 thousand cars added in the same period.
This means that the problem is not with people going into the city, but rather commuting outside the city. No point to have buses straight into the city to tempt car owners not to drive then!
Indeed. This is the big disadvantage of having all-rounded transport companies to dominate the nation's PT system.
I'm sorry for using HK again, but my former place of residence at Tseung Kwan O south is a good enough example of such direct services. 296D is a well favourite by Sheung Tak residents because it plies only 4 stops along the way to Jordan and Tsim Sha Tsui and it does not ply the middle Kowloon residential estates at all. Sheung Tak estate is only 5 mins walk away from the nearest train station. Believe it or not, even some residents at the heart of TKO south takes that service! (I'm one of them)
If you think that was an unfair example, I show you service 796C, which takes less than 30 minutes ride to Mongkok (given optimal traffic conditions, the trains win in this area). Very welcomed by TKL and TKO south residents as it again plies the East Kowloon corridor like service 296D, over the trains which only require one transfer, if not none. It skips all the unnecessary towns, as they already have their OWN services to CBD, smart move to compete that is.
The bus companies even plan routes to not duplicate the same neighbourhood. Besides skipping Kowloon KMB has 98D and 296D plying, exclusively, Hang Hau and Sheung Tak respectively, so that it won't have one service going round the whole of TKO before entering the expressway.
So there. Bus and train needs adequate competition between companies to give efficient and convenient rides for all. Look at services who don't ply the express: Service 692 duplicates the train greatly and yet doesn't ply the Eastern Corridor (i thought it should), thus losing the only benefit of taking train-duplicating buses: to reach destinations at same rate/faster than the train while having a seat. Thus, the route proved unsuccessful and that service is scheduled to be withdrawn by Dec this year.
I can say services 30 and 86 show a bit of resemblance to these services, and this is a comforting fact. However, if that is how LTA and the PTOs are going to manage our PT system, I cannot, and WOULD NOT imagine our bus system when CIL opens.
-
Speaking of direct services, SBS had done a good job in the past for introducing 190. But now that SMRT has taken over it's disaster because the NSL has alr plied Orchard and Dhoby Ghaut, and OFC as mentioned SMRT don't want to lose business. So OFC more rigids and more crowding. And so they are forcing the residents to take the train when the train itself isn't very good either. And thus the lack of competition. Who suffers in the end? The COMMUTERS.
In HK they have different bus and train operators and thus it's all full fleet DDs for the services I have mentioned in the previous post. Any SDs would mean a severe shortage of buses that day. I know it's unfair to say this because more than 80% of HK's bus fleets are DDs but still, the high-demand services gets the DDs while the less-welcomed services gets the SDs, unlike SG where you still have svc 119 DDs running around with the upper deck being totally empty...
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Speaking of direct services, SBS had done a good job in the past for introducing 190. But now that SMRT has taken over it's disaster because the NSL has alr plied Orchard and Dhoby Ghaut, and OFC as mentioned SMRT don't want to lose business. So OFC more rigids and more crowding. And so they are forcing the residents to take the train when the train itself isn't very good either. And thus the lack of competition. Who suffers in the end? The COMMUTERS.
In HK they have different bus and train operators and thus it's all full fleet DDs for the services I have mentioned in the previous post. Any SDs would mean a severe shortage of buses that day. I know it's unfair to say this because more than 80% of HK's bus fleets are DDs but still, the high-demand services gets the DDs while tservices welcomed services gets the SDs, unlike SG where you still have svc 119 DDs running around with the upper deck being totally empty...
119 citaro also wont get full lor.
The DDs run full day on weekends also. WTF
LTA was expecting punggol residents to take 119 to Sengkang MRT Stn so they deployed DDs, but the true fact is it's only 2-3 bus stops
-
Originally posted by SBS5010P:
119 citaro also wont get full lor.
The DDs run full day on weekends also. WTF
LTA was expecting punggol residents to take 119 to Sengkang MRT Stn so they deployed DDs, but the true fact is it's only 2-3 bus stops
Yes, they take but Punggol west is not fully developed. Around 30-40 pax in AM peak to Sengkang and DDs are deployed. Max the bus gets 65-70 pax AM peak near Rivervale towards Kovan. Eve peak, max loading goes to 50-55 pax.
This is what is irritating. A service like 119 gets a DD, while a long service like 857 and 985 that always run full capacity, don't have any high capacity buses, leaving passengers estranged. This is a big failure on LTA's part.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
I understand your point is to provide fast services into the city at fares comparable or even lower than MRT.
However, a bus can only pick up a max of 100 (on a dd) while a train could move 1000 easily and yet still have better frequency than the bus.
Going head to head with the trains is fatal, they cost less to run, carry more pax, and often is faster. Only way i see that buses can compete is to be faster.
The govt see this too, and thus they are implementing CityDirect services from places which are more "ulu" and go straight into the city.
But how sustainable is this? For e.g. the contract for CityDirect 651 costs 1mil, while having only 4 trips per working day. Per calculations by another forumer, this is about $500 per trip.
Even if you fill the entire bus with 100 pax which is impossible, thats only $230 of farebox collection with a loss of $270 for each trip. Good for the consumer, but bad for the govt and taxpayers.
And SMRT wont run this kind of bus services from any of their areas served by their trains, and neither will SBST. Why would they spend money to snatch customers away from their own trains?
At the end of the day, its left with LTA to do it, at a signficant loss using the BSEP funds.
And finally to make everything I just said completely useless, if you look at LTMP2013 page 46, you will see that cars driving into CBD has stayed more or less constant between 75 to 80 thousand within the last 8 years even though there was almost 150 thousand cars added in the same period.
This means that the problem is not with people going into the city, but rather commuting outside the city. No point to have buses straight into the city to tempt car owners not to drive then!
I agree but not completely. SMRT would be happy to deploy DDs on 850E, 951E if it had more high capacity buses. The trains are running at optimum levels right now. Why do you think they are offering free travel to people before AM peak? Isn't that loss of revenue. It is because MRT is not able to cope w/ loading. If you see all express/city direct routes, they go full. Even Premium services that are lot more expensive than normal travel, go to optimum seating level.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Yes, they take but Punggol west is not fully developed. Around 30-40 pax in AM peak to Sengkang and DDs are deployed. Max the bus gets 65-70 pax AM peak near Rivervale towards Kovan. Eve peak, max loading goes to 50-55 pax.
This is what is irritating. A service like 119 gets a DD, while a long service like 857 and 985 that always run full capacity, don't have any high capacity buses, leaving passengers estranged. This is a big failure on LTA's part.
190 deserves these DDs though...
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
190 deserves these DDs though...
It does
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
190 deserves these DDs though...
Confirm it needs, and it needs a lot
-
having more full day bus lanes and also force people on expressway to give way public buses travel on expressway like YOG use to be.
-
Well, good idea for the YOG use to be plan
-
if PAP listen to late Dr Goh plan of BRT I think bus transport now should be better manage. wait until MRT system fully bulid 2020s, we all die already before even step into the new mrt lines. And some of you already old man or lady ha ha ha ha
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I agree but not completely. SMRT would be happy to deploy DDs on 850E, 951E if it had more high capacity buses. The trains are running at optimum levels right now. Why do you think they are offering free travel to people before AM peak? Isn't that loss of revenue. It is because MRT is not able to cope w/ loading. If you see all express/city direct routes, they go full. Even Premium services that are lot more expensive than normal travel, go to optimum seating level.
Where would you suggest the DDs be deployed after they finish their morning runs? A bus has to be optimally used as long as possible while maintaining good loading. The DD would cost more in terms of fuel if it is being used lightly compared to a SD.
Also, 850E and 951E are funded completely by the BSEP's 1.1bil and not using SMRT's funds at all.
Free travel is also funded completely by the govt according to the news release by LTA. SMRT did not pay a single cent to promote people to travel before AM peak. So they don't lose any revenue at all. (In fact you could argue that they are earning more but paid by the govt)
So at the end of the day, they still did not operate any direct services competing with their rail services using their own funds. And the gov't is paying them to run free train services in the morning using taxpayer's money. Still happily making money so to speak.
-
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
Where would you suggest the DDs be deployed after they finish their morning runs? A bus has to be optimally used as long as possible while maintaining good loading. The DD would cost more in terms of fuel if it is being used lightly compared to a SD.
Also, 850E and 951E are funded completely by the BSEP's 1.1bil and not using SMRT's funds at all.
Free travel is also funded completely by the govt according to the news release by LTA. SMRT did not pay a single cent to promote people to travel before AM peak. So they don't lose any revenue at all. (In fact you could argue that they are earning more but paid by the govt)
So at the end of the day, they still did not operate any direct services competing with their rail services using their own funds. And the gov't is paying them to run free train services in the morning using taxpayer's money. Still happily making money so to speak.
Well, isn't that the story of Singapore anyway? Off-peak hours, you don't find buses really full - but all deployment should be taken into account keeping the AM peak load in mind.
Also running 3 DDs would not cost more than running 4 MANs on the road, would it?
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Well, isn't that the story of Singapore anyway? Off-peak hours, you don't find buses really full - but all deployment should be taken into account keeping the AM peak load in mind.
Also running 3 DDs would not cost more than running 4 MANs on the road, would it?
Yes, but the point I'm trying to bring across is that because of the multi-modal approach that our transport operators (especially smrt) are using, they have no incentive to expand their operations especially in terms of bus capacity.
Imagine them thinking: If I could buy 4 SD (about 1.1mil) that will be better utilised when rail capacity increases in few years time, why should I pay 400k more for 3 DDs (1.5mil)?
In a few years time the DDs wont be filled up since most would (esp bpj) resort to taking the trains. Of course the public and LTA is forcing them to do something about it, and so you will see some larger capacity buses rolling in soon.
If buses was a separate entity, you'd be fighting hard to gain as much pax as you can and expand as much as possible so that we can win passengers over from trains! But that's not the case with SMRT. Not at all. That is the point I am trying to bring across.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
Yes, but the point I'm trying to bring across is that because of the multi-modal approach that our transport operators (especially smrt) are using, they have no incentive to expand their operations especially in terms of bus capacity.
Imagine them thinking: If I could buy 4 SD (about 1.1mil) that will be better utilised when rail capacity increases in few years time, why should I pay 400k more for 3 DDs (1.5mil)?
In a few years time the DDs wont be filled up since most would (esp bpj) resort to taking the trains. Of course the public and LTA is forcing them to do something about it, and so you will see some larger capacity buses rolling in soon.
If buses was a separate entity, you'd be fighting hard to gain as much pax as you can and expand as much as possible so that we can win passengers over from trains! But that's not the case with SMRT. Not at all. That is the point I am trying to bring across.
Okay. I agree with your point.
-
-
Looks like with today's news (here) on tendering of bus services, this is set to change. Bus co. will in the future earn a fixed margin determined by the tender instead of farebox revenue, similar to many european systems (esp. london).
With that, that also means that trains and buses of each company will no longer directly compete for farebox revenue. Maybe this will bring improvements to smrt buses, provided they get the tender at a price that they want, and since it's now profitable?
Having said that, this move is rather challenging in my opinion:
- * Bad: Fares will be determined completely by govt, but since no one is absorbing the losses, that will likely be passed to the consumers resulting in net fare rise.
- * Bad: Alternative to point 1, the increase in fares will be absorbed by more "BSEP" type of funds, which is still borne by taxpayers.
- * Good: Service quality will be strictly maintained (or operators might get kicked out the next round).
- * Good: Route network will likely expand since there is no longer a conflict of interests between buses and trains.
- * Unknown: Will buses be leased out by LTA, or bought by companies to run (as London).
Do share your views!
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
Looks like with today's news (here) on tendering of bus services, this is set to change. Bus co. will in the future earn a fixed margin determined by the tender instead of farebox revenue, similar to many european systems (esp. london).
With that, that also means that trains and buses of each company will no longer directly compete for farebox revenue. Maybe this will bring improvements to smrt buses, provided they get the tender at a price that they want, and since it's now profitable?
Having said that, this move is rather challenging in my opinion:
- * Bad: Fares will be determined completely by govt, but since no one is absorbing the losses, that will likely be passed to the consumers resulting in net fare rise.
- * Bad: Alternative to point 1, the increase in fares will be absorbed by more "BSEP" type of funds, which is still borne by taxpayers.
- * Good: Service quality will be strictly maintained (or operators might get kicked out the next round).
- * Good: Route network will likely expand since there is no longer a conflict of interests between buses and trains.
- * Unknown: Will buses be leased out by LTA, or bought by companies to run (as London).
Do share your views!
Yes! Finally the SG of the past is somewhat gonna be back. It's great the gov came to its senses.
SMRTB, get ready to pack up, and balik kampong.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
Looks like with today's news (here) on tendering of bus services, this is set to change. Bus co. will in the future earn a fixed margin determined by the tender instead of farebox revenue, similar to many european systems (esp. london).
With that, that also means that trains and buses of each company will no longer directly compete for farebox revenue. Maybe this will bring improvements to smrt buses, provided they get the tender at a price that they want, and since it's now profitable?
Having said that, this move is rather challenging in my opinion:
- * Bad: Fares will be determined completely by govt, but since no one is absorbing the losses, that will likely be passed to the consumers resulting in net fare rise.
- * Bad: Alternative to point 1, the increase in fares will be absorbed by more "BSEP" type of funds, which is still borne by taxpayers.
- * Good: Service quality will be strictly maintained (or operators might get kicked out the next round).
- * Good: Route network will likely expand since there is no longer a conflict of interests between buses and trains.
- * Unknown: Will buses be leased out by LTA, or bought by companies to run (as London).
Do share your views!
The success will depend on the length of the contracts LTA is handing out. Anything more than 5 years won't bring any real competition. 3 years is optimal because there will always be the threat of replacement for poor provision of service.
I know that because I am in a certain part of Australia where such contracts are on 10 year terms, and the local operator can blatantly tell me "up yours" over official correspondence when I complained of poor performance because their contract still has a long way to go and the authorities can't be bothered with overseeing the contract.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
The success will depend on the length of the contracts LTA is handing out. Anything more than 5 years won't bring any real competition. 3 years is optimal because there will always be the threat of replacement for poor provision of service.
I know that because I am in a certain part of Australia where such contracts are on 10 year terms, and the local operator can blatantly tell me "up yours" over official correspondence when I complained of poor performance because their contract still has a long way to go and the authorities can't be bothered with overseeing the contract.
That's true, but if the companies have to purchase their own buses, 3 years might be too short for such a large sum of investment. It would be ok if buses are leased out by the govt.
Perhaps 5 years can be the max, but the contract can be terminated prematurely if service levels are not maintained and nothing is done to address it.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
That's true, but if the companies have to purchase their own buses, 3 years might be too short for such a large sum of investment. It would be ok if buses are leased out by the govt.
Perhaps 5 years can be the max, but the contract can be terminated prematurely if service levels are not maintained and nothing is done to address it.
Best is not to have the current MRT operators to control majority of the bus services. If you ask me they should just stick to the feeders townlinks and Intratowns that terminate at interchanges near their respective MRT stations.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
That's true, but if the companies have to purchase their own buses, 3 years might be too short for such a large sum of investment. It would be ok if buses are leased out by the govt.
Perhaps 5 years can be the max, but the contract can be terminated prematurely if service levels are not maintained and nothing is done to address it.
In less than 10 years LTA will have an immediate fleet if they choose to, ready to be leased out. And some of these buses are already on the roads.