1)Service 972
SMRT to SBST
-Service 972 is currently majority full to the door
-Partial 190 load gone to 972
-972 demand will continue increase
2)Service 169
SMRT to SBST
-Loads from AMK and WDL due to SBW Camp
-Lack of bendies
-DDs to be added when SBST
In exchange
84:SBST to SMRT
11:SBST to SMRT
Originally posted by TIB1096A:1)Service 972
SMRT to SBST
-Service 972 is currently majority full to the door
-Partial 190 load gone to 972
-972 demand will continue increase
2)Service 169
SMRT to SBST
-Loads from AMK and WDL due to SBW Camp
-Lack of bendies
-DDs to be added when SBST
169 got weekday bendies... It's just that the bendies are all splits, so none or just one pathetic bendy would appear on 169 on weekends...
972 just needs more buses, maybe 2-3 splits? Then, they can make use of SMB3092A and SMB3093Y, which just jump around on 972 and other random services...
854 should go to SBST...
Please feedback to LTY, LTA and your MPs, I have done my part. These buggers just dont give a damn. Paint me with fanciful plans like DTL II is up in 2016.
Priority list:
190 (BBDEP) in exchange of 170 (BBDEP)
169 (AMDEP) in exchange of 160 (BBDEP)
854 (AMDEP/BNDEP) in exchange of 66 (SLBP / BNDEP)
851 (AMDEP) in exchange of 39 (CGBP)
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Priority list:
190 (BBDEP) in exchange of 170 (BBDEP)
169 (AMDEP) in exchange of 160 (BBDEP)
854 (AMDEP/BNDEP) in exchange of 66 (SLBP / BNDEP)
851 (AMDEP) in exchange of 39 (CGBP)
You must be crazy...
To think of trading 160 and 170 to SMRT...
Can't imagine how the cross-border bus situation will be with this wonderful arrangement...
And for 851 and 39, though I do like this arrangement I have slight issues regarding the dominance of the east side-Yishun route (full SMRT with 39, 854, 969 and the MRT), which will make this arrangement a disadvantage to SBST.
85 to SMRT, re-numbered to 850
84 to SMRT, crossovers from 850
Punggol to SMRT??? better not.
later have only one feeder service in Punggol.
3, 34, 43, 50, 62, 84, 85, 136 all deleted. take MRT out.
hub-and-spoke model.
Originally posted by SMB128B:You must be crazy...
To think of trading 160 and 170 to SMRT...
Can't imagine how the cross-border bus situation will be with this wonderful arrangement...
And for 851 and 39, though I do like this arrangement I have slight issues regarding the dominance of the east side-Yishun route (full SMRT with 39, 854, 969 and the MRT), which will make this arrangement a disadvantage to SBST.
I am not surprised you have a problem with my post again. LOL.
There is a rationale behind it. 160, 170, 170X are all SD fleet and SMRT has that in abundance with the new MAN A22s. This can be traded for routes like 190, 854, 169 that really need high capacity buses and are not given to them because they don't have them.
This is a practical situation. IF SMRT cannot manage cross border services, it is not even managing city services well. Also priority should be for city travelers on 190, 169, 854 than cross border travellers.
The purpose of this topic is FAULTY. No one would like any service being handed over to SMRT. Hence, we are in this status quo situation where services like 169, 190 that should be with SBST cannot coz there needs to be some service transfer.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I am not surprised you have a problem with my post again. LOL.There is a rationale behind it. 160, 170, 170X are all SD fleet and SMRT has that in abundance with the new MAN A22s. This can be traded for routes like 190, 854, 169 that really need high capacity buses and are not given to them because they don't have them.
This is a practical situation. IF SMRT cannot manage cross border services, it is not even managing city services well. Also priority should be for city travelers on 190, 169, 854 than cross border travellers.
Well do you think SMRT will care?
Just look at 950. Just look.
ONE svc also so jialat. How to entrust the cross-border industry to them?
And your practical situations really proved very dangerous. What are you actually thinking? This cross-border thing is a matter of the PTO, and perhaps the nation's PT's reputation. In fact, it should be the OTHER way round. If you can't monitor and fair resources to the local svcs then have fun doing those out of Singapore. And I see the two svcs as equal levels, no this priority here this priority there. Besides, 170 plies the city too what, so doesn't that cross your statement?
So shouldn't we give something lighter to start with? For eg 66? What I can tell you is SBST management for 66 is catastrophic, so maybe that pose has a less risky target for SMRT?
Originally posted by SMB128B:Well do you think SMRT will care?
Just look at 950. Just look.
ONE svc also so jialat. How to entrust the cross-border industry to them?
And your practical situations really proved very dangerous. What are you actually thinking? This cross-border thing is a matter of the PTO, and perhaps the nation's PT's reputation. In fact, it should be the OTHER way round. If you can't monitor and fair resources to the local svcs then have fun doing those out of Singapore. And I see the two svcs as equal levels, no this priority here this priority there. Besides, 170 plies the city too what, so doesn't that cross your statement?
So shouldn't we give something lighter to start with? For eg 66? What I can tell you is SBST management for 66 is catastrophic, so maybe that pose has a less risky target for SMRT?
Just look at 190. Do you care more about 190 or a cross border service? Which service by SMRT is exemplary?
Also why is 66 catastrophic? Do you even know what that means?
Originally posted by sinicker:Punggol to SMRT??? better not.
later have only one feeder service in Punggol.
3, 34, 43, 50, 62, 84, 85, 136 all deleted. take MRT out.
hub-and-spoke model.
typical SMRT, i agree that SMRT may remove all these services, remain one 83. everyone all take LRT, if they ever allowed to control Punggol.
to serve tampines, 969 may be forced to exit punggol way, exit punggol road that kind of arrangement
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Just look at 190. Do you care more about 190 or a cross border service? Which service by SMRT is exemplary?
Also why is 66 catastrophic? Do you even know what that means?
Hmmm.
Looks like you haven't been reading properly.
By saying EQUAL, I mean that we should not disregard 190 too. But by trading 190 for 160 and 170 does that reall solve any problems in general?
Later some guy go take situation at CIQ again. Would YOU like that?
I repeat again. MY solution is to trade 190 for ANOTHER SVC, can be all SD as you said. Like eg 66.
Speaking of 66, go observe it at three locations: Bedok, Little India and Bukit Timah Rd. Management is horrible, freq all time low, and bus often comes late. Once encountered missing 4 buses, but no more than that. Okay so maybe SMRT can do no better you will say, but isn't that better than 160 and 170? Or you tell me what other solutions loh! Remember, aim is to solve prob in GENERAL hor.
Originally posted by SMB128B:Hmmm.
Looks like you haven't been reading properly.
By saying EQUAL, I mean that we should not disregard 190 too. But by trading 190 for 160 and 170 does that reall solve any problems in general?
Later some guy go take situation at CIQ again. Would YOU like that?
I repeat again. MY solution is to trade 190 for ANOTHER SVC, can be all SD as you said. Like eg 66.
Speaking of 66, go observe it at three locations: Bedok, Little India and Bukit Timah Rd. Management is horrible, freq all time low, and bus often comes late. Once encountered missing 4 buses, but no more than that. Okay so maybe SMRT can do no better you will say, but isn't that better than 160 and 170? Or you tell me what other solutions loh! Remember, aim is to solve prob in GENERAL hor.
Didn't i already suggest to trade 66 for 854?
160/170 can be operated well with same number of buses from SMRT side. I don't see what your issue here is. The solution is to substitute services that need or can use only SDs with those that require high capacity buses.
Originally posted by SMB128B:Hmmm.
Looks like you haven't been reading properly.
By saying EQUAL, I mean that we should not disregard 190 too. But by trading 190 for 160 and 170 does that reall solve any problems in general?
Later some guy go take situation at CIQ again. Would YOU like that?
I repeat again. MY solution is to trade 190 for ANOTHER SVC, can be all SD as you said. Like eg 66.
Speaking of 66, go observe it at three locations: Bedok, Little India and Bukit Timah Rd. Management is horrible, freq all time low, and bus often comes late. Once encountered missing 4 buses, but no more than that. Okay so maybe SMRT can do no better you will say, but isn't that better than 160 and 170? Or you tell me what other solutions loh! Remember, aim is to solve prob in GENERAL hor.
Also don't over-exaggerate the 66 situation. Frequency is not bad and in fact has many other services along its way that supplement the loading well. 67, 157, 174, 852 on Bukit Timah stretch. 64, 65 on Little India side. 228 on Bedok side.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:160/170 can be operated well with same number of buses from SMRT side. I don't see what your issue here is. The solution is to substitute services that need or can use only SDs with those that require high capacity buses.
But one question in mind: WILL THEY?
As said by another user (sinicker), what if they, worse still, withdraw the svcs?
Why risk?
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Also don't over-exaggerate the 66 situation. Frequency is not bad and in fact has many other services along its way that supplement the loading well. 67, 157, 174, 852 on Bukit Timah stretch. 64, 65 on Little India side. 228 on Bedok side.
I'm not over-exaggerating.
I mean, why would I, if I had actually experienced it myself?
Few years back, missed 4 buses during PM peak from Upper Bukit Timah towards Bedok. Terrible freq (though not really bad now), SBST fault on this.
Anyway, that's not my main subject.
Will SMRT not mistreat 160 and 170? 自己心ä¸æœ‰æ•°.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:The purpose of this topic is FAULTY. No one would like any service being handed over to SMRT. Hence, we are in this status quo situation where services like 169, 190 that should be with SBST cannot coz there needs to be some service transfer.
I'd rather all buses to be managed by SBST and rail lines to be managed by SMRT.
Originally posted by SMB128B:But one question in mind: WILL THEY?
As said by another user (sinicker), what if they, worse still, withdraw the svcs?
Why risk?
So what will LTA be doing - sleep while SMRT withdraws services??? Use some common sense bro!
Originally posted by SMB128B:I'm not over-exaggerating.
I mean, why would I, if I had actually experienced it myself?
Few years back, missed 4 buses during PM peak from Upper Bukit Timah towards Bedok. Terrible freq (though not really bad now), SBST fault on this.
Anyway, that's not my main subject.
Will SMRT not mistreat 160 and 170? 自己心ä¸æœ‰æ•°.
Few years back?? Why not talk current? Few years back 45, 52 had horrible frequency. Why don't you whine about that too? If now you say, it is not bad, then on what basis you say SBST managing 66 is catastrophic. You have just gotten into the habit of arguing over here, without using much brains. And then you even have the audacity to call others names.