LTA's Bus Service Enhancement Program - BSEP (Part 3)
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
Well, maybe I was not clear in my explanation. The st 72 I am referring to is the part that is also along st 75, and the part that is also along ave 4 (which is also st 71). The other of st 72 and ave 4 is the part that is also along ave 5 where 99 and 185 plies.
Please do not disagree with me just for the sake of it. Why so negative? Chill, man. You know, you contradicted yourself in the "PM peak at Boon Lay interchange, each bus is packed to door" part, because this one I also got write (I say 242 load is excessively large for SD at around peak hours).
Yes, I agree with you that a swop of 242's SDs with DDs from other services is perhaps sufficient to handle the load better during peak hours. Maybe this is all the enhancement required for now. In future, we just keep replacing 242's SDs with DDs, until when all replace already, then we introduce PPSS to shadow it.
Meanwhile, 243 and 181 are almost having a full-DD deployment during peak hours. Yet, the capacity is still not enough. I think there should be a PPSS on 243G (U-turn at st82) very soon.
The P model has turned out bad for most services introduced. You live in the area right. Please go and check out loading on 240P, you will know what I am saying. 243 and 181 are both doing well. 243 will also get another BSEP. Why do you need now P services as well?
Also 181 is 50% DD fleet. LTA just needs to get SBST to convert 1 more SD slot to DD along with crossover from 193.
242 needs one more DD (it is more nice to have kind of thing). I would not want govt to spend more money on P services when it is not needed.
-
Since my prev post was in the Part 2 of this thread and not in this new thread, I shall post here instead.
To BusAnalyzer: Erm, nopes. I didn't have the free time to check up on all the e-tts of all the svcs. I went by gut feeling for certain svcs that I felt needed some improvements. And the HGDEP svc I was talking about, wasn't Sv 64 as what others mentioned. I didn't check Sv 64 yet when I posted that post yesterday. So it's another HGDEP svc that I was referring to.
If you need a clue: it's a looping svc. Should help you eliminate a huge chunk of svcs already.
And to others who guessed the BNDEP svc: yeah it's Sv 42.
Quite obvious lah if you just see the e-tt and the huge increase in number of rows of trips (81 trips in new e-tt vs 47 trips in old e-tt for Weekdays).
I wanted to think it as only 1 fleet add for Sv 42, but then again, if Sv 354 that kind of route can get 2 fleet adds, I can't see why Sv 42 (which is much longer than Sv 354 anyway) can't get 2 fleet adds as well with the new e-tt. -
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
The P model has turned out bad for most services introduced. You live in the area right. Please go and check out loading on 240P, you will know what I am saying. 243 and 181 are both doing well. 243 will also get another BSEP. Why do you need now P services as well?
Also 181 is 50% DD fleet. LTA just needs to get SBST to convert 1 more SD slot to DD along with crossover from 193.
242 needs one more DD (it is more nice to have kind of thing). I would not want govt to spend more money on P services when it is not needed.
I'm not sure if it's just for my neighbourhood, but in Pasir Ris, none of the posters printed for the PPSS of 358P & 359P ever mentioned about the fact that those 2 svcs' fares are distance-based. I think this is the main issue that has prevented many commuters from boarding the PPSS svcs.
Because if LTA hadn't bothered to mention in the poster that the PPSS svcs have distance-based fares (ie, same fare as when you take the SBST version of those feeder routes), then high chance isn't it that people would assume that they've to pay premium fares to sit on those coaches deployed on the PPSS? Especially when you compare the difference in the seats on the coaches vs the SBST ones.
So if you had that misconception, then very likely the commuters would just choose to wait for the SBST buses on those feeder routes even though the PPSS coaches come. Because they want to avoid paying the premium fares (which they assumed to be charged on PPSS) for the feeder route. -
Originally posted by carbikebus:
You ask new service somemore later that Lui Taik You say must increase fares again to sustain men in white opps bus contract models bla bla bla..
Hi mr carbikebus, total 80 new services will be introduced no matter what. This is irregardless of whether the fare increases or not. Like it or not, fare will increase. I don't like it. Better lobby for the new service to bypass your house to benefit your estate. For those staying in new HDB flats, they are definitely going to get the new services. Only disadvantage is that their areas mostly have poor public transport system. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by SBS 9631X:
I'm not sure if it's just for my neighbourhood, but in Pasir Ris, none of the posters printed for the PPSS of 358P & 359P ever mentioned about the fact that those 2 svcs' fares are distance-based. I think this is the main issue that has prevented many commuters from boarding the PPSS svcs.
Because if LTA hadn't bothered to mention in the poster that the PPSS svcs have distance-based fares (ie, same fare as when you take the SBST version of those feeder routes), then high chance isn't it that people would assume that they've to pay premium fares to sit on those coaches deployed on the PPSS? Especially when you compare the difference in the seats on the coaches vs the SBST ones.
So if you had that misconception, then very likely the commuters would just choose to wait for the SBST buses on those feeder routes even though the PPSS coaches come. Because they want to avoid paying the premium fares (which they assumed to be charged on PPSS) for the feeder route.Hi 9631X, been observing, 358P uses those "mini" buses, and it doesn't seem to accomodate much passengers....... For 359P, passengers who have difficulty climbing stairs would tend to avoid taking those coaches because they have steps :/
-
Originally posted by SBS1929R:
Hi 9631X, been observing, 358P uses those "mini" buses, and it doesn't seem to accomodate much passengers....... For 359P, passengers who have difficulty climbing stairs would tend to avoid taking those coaches because they have steps :/
358P did help 20 plus devastated ppl who either missed the bus or couldnt board to go home early.
-
Can mini 358P ferry all passengers,may i ask? Or sme r stranded waiting for SBST?
-
Originally posted by Acx1688:
Can mini 358P ferry all passengers,may i ask? Or sme r stranded waiting for SBST?
-
quite disappointed with what I observe on 291P/293P/358P. a sad use of taxpayers' money.
1. LTA insists PTOs getting low-floor, WAB buses. then now, with taxpayers' money, these private operators use such high floor buses. ppl with pram cannot board coz' even if they do board, their pram has to hog the aisle. the elderly has to climb 4-5 steps to get on the bus. but of course, during peak hours there are few commuters who have prams or are the elderly. either schoolchildren or the working crowd.....
2. honestly, 358P? did the private operator stand to profit by using small buses or were they indeed allocated less $$ to operate 358P with the use of small buses.
3. private operators using their buses with only 1 door. *facepalm*
seems like a rushed effort, not thought through. -
Originally posted by sinicker:
quite disappointed with what I observe on 291P/293P/358P. a sad use of taxpayers' money.
1. LTA insists PTOs getting low-floor, WAB buses. then now, with taxpayers' money, these private operators use such high floor buses. ppl with pram cannot board coz' even if they do board, their pram has to hog the aisle. the elderly has to climb 4-5 steps to get on the bus. but of course, during peak hours there are few commuters who have prams or are the elderly. either schoolchildren or the working crowd.....
2. honestly, 358P? did the private operator stand to profit by using small buses or were they indeed allocated less $$ to operate 358P with the use of small buses.
3. private operators using their buses with only 1 door. *facepalm*
seems like a rushed effort, not thought through.You captured it well. More people are seeing this now. This whole P thing seems like a scam to me. People like dupdup (puppets of LTA) will even justify this as a good move on part of LTA.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
You captured it well. More people are seeing this now. This whole P thing seems like a scam to me. People like dupdup (puppets of LTA) will even justify this as a good move on part of LTA.
Actually, I am just wondering: rather than introduce PPSS to shadow heavily utilised routes, would it be better to introduce new (trunk) routes (services) that cover (or provide alternative to) sections that are heavily utilised across services, while provide new bus connections?
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
You captured it well. More people are seeing this now. This whole P thing seems like a scam to me. People like dupdup (puppets of LTA) will even justify this as a good move on part of LTA.
It isnt!
It's a disgusting scheme that generally wastes taxpayers money.
And also the buses they used are like shit. I really wanna laugh when I see them using Isuzu coaches!
Somemore some hard-necked users wanna defend the usage of these buses here...
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
Actually, I am just wondering: rather than introduce PPSS to shadow heavily utilised routes, would it be better to introduce new (trunk) routes (services) that cover (or provide alternative to) sections that are heavily utilised across services, while provide new bus connections?
I rather short trunks like 38 or 69.
-
Originally posted by sinicker:
quite disappointed with what I observe on 291P/293P/358P. a sad use of taxpayers' money.
1. LTA insists PTOs getting low-floor, WAB buses. then now, with taxpayers' money, these private operators use such high floor buses. ppl with pram cannot board coz' even if they do board, their pram has to hog the aisle. the elderly has to climb 4-5 steps to get on the bus. but of course, during peak hours there are few commuters who have prams or are the elderly. either schoolchildren or the working crowd.....
2. honestly, 358P? did the private operator stand to profit by using small buses or were they indeed allocated less $$ to operate 358P with the use of small buses.
3. private operators using their buses with only 1 door. *facepalm*
seems like a rushed effort, not thought through.1. I agree with this, but not many private operators have WAB city buses, especially those that got the contracts. Currently only 291P has the ex SMB137A which is a low entry WAB bus, while 240P also uses the Zhongtong Sunny city bus too (though this one is single step entrance and not WAB).
2. 358P is because of the narrow winding road at one point of the journey, according to the Travel GSH staff, but if the full size SBS buses can make it through, I find it no reason for them to deploy minibuses.
3. 222P, 240P, 268P, 291P, 293P (except for one of them), 307P?, 359P, 912P buses are all 2 door.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
It isnt!
It's a disgusting scheme that generally wastes taxpayers money.
And also the buses they used are like shit. I really wanna laugh when I see them using Isuzu coaches!
Somemore some hard-necked users wanna defend the usage of these buses here...
If you think Isuzu coaches are the worst, try those Zhong Tong Triumph minibuses on 358P.
-
Originally posted by sinicker:
quite disappointed with what I observe on 291P/293P/358P. a sad use of taxpayers' money.
1. LTA insists PTOs getting low-floor, WAB buses. then now, with taxpayers' money, these private operators use such high floor buses. ppl with pram cannot board coz' even if they do board, their pram has to hog the aisle. the elderly has to climb 4-5 steps to get on the bus. but of course, during peak hours there are few commuters who have prams or are the elderly. either schoolchildren or the working crowd.....
2. honestly, 358P? did the private operator stand to profit by using small buses or were they indeed allocated less $$ to operate 358P with the use of small buses.
3. private operators using their buses with only 1 door. *facepalm*
seems like a rushed effort, not thought through.Just this: GE2016.
Not sure if such rush-rush efforts will really really help in the long-run like you pointed out.
But what we do now is just a reflection of populist tactics in the wider world.
But as a broader picture, I would think that the PPSS was a way to bolster pte bus operators' confidence in bidding for the future competitive tenders in the long future.
Right now as you can see, its quite............
I can only say I dont envy the poor fellow at LTA managing the PPSS stuff with directions from up there and there....and there.
-
Originally posted by Acx1688:
Can mini 358P ferry all passengers,may i ask? Or sme r stranded waiting for SBST?
Some are stranded.
-
Originally posted by SBS 9631X:
I'm not sure if it's just for my neighbourhood, but in Pasir Ris, none of the posters printed for the PPSS of 358P & 359P ever mentioned about the fact that those 2 svcs' fares are distance-based. I think this is the main issue that has prevented many commuters from boarding the PPSS svcs.
Because if LTA hadn't bothered to mention in the poster that the PPSS svcs have distance-based fares (ie, same fare as when you take the SBST version of those feeder routes), then high chance isn't it that people would assume that they've to pay premium fares to sit on those coaches deployed on the PPSS? Especially when you compare the difference in the seats on the coaches vs the SBST ones.
So if you had that misconception, then very likely the commuters would just choose to wait for the SBST buses on those feeder routes even though the PPSS coaches come. Because they want to avoid paying the premium fares (which they assumed to be charged on PPSS) for the feeder route.Yes, a concern from the commuters are the fares. The BCs of almost all the PPSS services I have talked to said that there is no mention of fares, hence commuters are scared that they would have to pay a premium price to ride a coach.
However, it depends on what bus is deployed. Commuters will not hestitate to board city buses especially those with EDS. The exact reason why ex-SMB137A can depart with a full load + standees and why Tong Tar swopped out 2 Isuzu coaches for 2 more Zhong Tong Sunny city buses.
-
The PPSS,CDS n their funny names was used as a trial for LTA to check,test the bus contracting tender model
Replies fr official hint tt Low floor, WAB was not even considered when contract was awarded...
Those awarded for these svcs DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE, PROPER resources for LTA 's master plan of full WAB fleet as they know they will nev make e cut when local bus routes up for tender... Before LTA announce they will take over whole bus fleet to reduce barriers to entry which LTA will prob make a policy u turn in e future as you know its tax payers money when buying buses n a lot of SGreans have private tpt, cars,bikes,etc...
MOT hinted in the speech of non sustainability of throwing money at bus ops...
UK,HK n many oth operators own their own fleet for EOS n relationship w manufacturers...
Y is tt SBST still announce to buy WEG IIs, citaros when LTA taking over all buses? Do enlighten me if anyone knows the answer, please
-
Anyone knows the length of the PPSS contract?
That might be the key.
-
2 yrs...
-
From LTA web
News Releases 21 Jan 2014
4 Services to be launched progressively from 2nd quarter 2014
Three private bus operators (PBOs) have been awarded contracts with a total value of about $5 million to operate four Peak Period Short Services (PPSS) for two years under the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP). The four PPSS will overlay existing feeder bus services to connect residents in Ang Mo Kio, Bedok, Boon Lay and Woodlands to nearby bus interchanges and/or MRT stations. The PPSS will be launched progressively from the second quarter of 2014.
Routes Awarded
Commute Solutions LLP has been awarded two PPSS – one from Ang Mo Kio MRT station to Ang Mo Kio Avenue 9 to complement Service 268 and one from Woodlands bus interchange to Woodlands Street 41 to complement Service 912 – for about $1.17 million and $1.15 million respectively.
Tong Tar Transport Services Pte Ltd has been awarded the PPSS from Lakeside MRT station to Boon Lay MRT station, complementing Service 240, for about $1.7 million.
ComfortDelgro Bus Pte Ltd has been awarded the PPSS from Bedok MRT station to Chai Chee Drive to complement Service 222, for a sum of about $1 million.
Out of the five PPSS that were tendered out in September 2013, the PPSS from Woodlands bus interchange to Marsiling Road was not awarded as the bids submitted were either not compliant with the tender requirements or not competitively priced.
All four PPSS will run at least five trips per hour during peak periods on weekday mornings and evenings, excluding public holidays. More trips may be added depending on the demand for these services. Further details will be announced closer to the implementation dates.
This initiative is in line with the Ministry of Transport’s announcement at the Committee of Supply 2013 to tap on the resources of PBOs to run shorter bus services to augment the resources of the public transport operators (PTOs). The tendering process will allow the most cost-efficient operators to win the rights to operate the services. Successful operators will have to apply for bus service licences from the Public Transport Council (PTC), which regulates bus services.
Annex: Route maps of the four Peak Period Short Services
-
Originally posted by Acx1688:
2 yrs...
Then my guess is that the PPSS is just a stop-gap measure.
With competitive tender, elements like PPSS can be specified anyway and included in the contracts.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Then my guess is that the PPSS is just a stop-gap measure.
With competitive tender, elements like PPSS can be specified anyway and included in the contracts.
Yes Bro, trial, MIW policies always trial before full implementation...
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I agree. 115 has to be extended/amended. I was thinking this was the Hougang route enhancement that LTA mentioned. Current ridership on 115 is v low. It is unlike 84 that does have decent loading. This is how LTA wastes money. Hope not!I am hoping there will be a route change announcement. At least 115 should go to the inner part of HG Ave 1 HDB flats that don't have any service, and people have to walk 400-500m to closest stop. That's why this stop sees 40-45 pax boarding at once on 45A DD in AM.
115 better to start from HGDEP and utilise the derelict bus stops along Defu Ave 1.