DTL rationalisation speculations
-
If rationalization is needed to improve the ridership of a newly-opened MRT line, then it proves that there is no need to build the MRT line in the first place, since most commuters would rather continue to use buses than the new MRT line.
This was precisely why the NEL rationalization was that brutal 13 years ago, because LTA wanted to force people to switch to the NEL rather than use public buses due to its poor ridership (about the same as DTL2 right now). So don't come and tell me they won't be brutal this time round - it'll be just as brutal, or worse.
Might as well demolish all the bus stops along the DTL corridor. Since the DTL can provide "all the necessary connections to commuters' destinations", what is the point of continuing running buses along the DTL corridor? Might as well withdraw/cut all of them and let's see what happens when the DTL breaks down. No need to consider how much they duplicate the DTL at all. Just withdraw all routes that duplicate the DTL even one small bit senselessly like what they did to NEL 13 years ago.
147 shouldn't even have been left behind, commuters should just suffer and squeeze in the NEL. LTA shouldn't have bothered with the outcry to retain 147 and went ahead with its cut.
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:Might as well demolish all the bus stops along the DTL corridor. Since the DTL can provide "all the necessary connections to commuters' destinations", what is the point of continuing running buses along the DTL corridor? Might as well withdraw/cut all of them and let's see what happens when the DTL breaks down. No need to consider how much they duplicate the DTL at all. Just withdraw all routes that duplicate the DTL even one small bit senselessly like what they did to NEL 13 years ago.
No thanks. These are extreme hypothetical situations. It is an undeniable fact that the public transport system is based on MRT-bus integration (however poor some areas might be). Rationalisation is based on finding the optimal balance between MRT and bus.
There is currently an oversupply of resources based on what fellow forum members have observed. As it is not feasible to cut trains, the solution is to reduce buses, in particularly those on services with the most passenger loading decrease (that have transferred to the DTL).
Again, if you like, please read my post on page 6 of this thread.
-
Originally posted by AJQZC:
No thanks. These are extreme hypothetical situations. It is an undeniable fact that the public transport system is based on MRT-bus integration (however poor some areas might be). Rationalisation is based on finding the optimal balance between MRT and bus.
There is currently an oversupply of resources based on what fellow forum members have observed. As it is not feasible to cut trains, the solution is to reduce buses, in particularly those on services with the most passenger loading decrease (that have transferred to the DTL).
Again, if you like, please read my post on page 6 of this thread.
Amend as express lor
-
I know it is too late but the routing of DTL2 should have been better, something like:
Yew Tee (crossover pax from NSL)
Keat Hong
Bukit Panjang
Pending
Ngee Ann
Dover
NUH
Alexandra
Bukit Merah Central
SGH
Chinatown and continues via Bugis/Jalan Besar to DTL3.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
If they want DTL2 loading to improve, definitely they will need to rationalize.
I think route planning of DTL2 hasn't been good. It mostly passes through condos/private housing. People choose to live further away in these areas so that they pay less housing money to compensate for COE and cars.
Peak period analysis
Bukit Panjang - major part of DTL2 loading
Cashew/Hillview - very few people board
Beauty World - decent
All stations up to Botanic Gardens - loading/alighting remains poor. Contrary to popular belief did not notice many students alighting at King Albert or at schools along Bukit Timah stretch
Botanic Gardens - good boarding/alighting - transfer pax
Stevens/Newton - loading is poor
Little India - good boarding/alighting - transfer pax
Rochor - the station seems almost empty
Bugis - not much boarding, quite a bit alighting.
For a small MRT during peak hours there are seats available, and ample space to stand.
1. From my sources, stations such as Tan Kah Kee are crowded with students in the morning.2. I don't know how you came up with the conclusion that loading at Newton is poor. It's not as good as Little India, but definitely better than Stevens.
3. Again, Rochor is definitely not a station with almost empty loading. Many board at Little India and alight at Rochor. MANY.
4. For Bugis, there's more people on DTL1 side than those on the DTL2 side.
And during peak hours there are NO seats available. Nor for some off-peak hours. Just this morning 8am I was taking DTL to Promenade and the number of pax standing is as good as those seating, which is much better than the subsequent CCL train I boarded towards Paya Lebar (which was almost empty).
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Candidates for rationalisation not in whole but part.
961
Woodlands Interchange <> Beauty World (loop)
171
Yishun Interchange <> Beauty World (loop)
67
CCK Interchange <> Marina Center (loop)
* follows 171 route from Newton to Marina Center
Introducing 68
Tampines Interchange <> Middle Road (loop)
120Lor 1 Geylang Terminal <> Tehlok Blangah (loop)follows 961 route till Lower Delta Road junction.* Missing link between Little India/Serangoon Rd and Bukit Timah road covered by 66* Missing link between Ferrar Road and Bukit Timah covered by 174* Missing link between Jalan Bukit Merah and Ferrar Road covered by 855Honestly I don't think 961 has lost its loading. I still observe quite okay loading at TKK towards Woodlands, which proves its unique route still survives well.
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:
If rationalization is needed to improve the ridership of a newly-opened MRT line, then it proves that there is no need to build the MRT line in the first place, since most commuters would rather continue to use buses than the new MRT line.
This was precisely why the NEL rationalization was that brutal 13 years ago, because LTA wanted to force people to switch to the NEL rather than use public buses due to its poor ridership (about the same as DTL2 right now). So don't come and tell me they won't be brutal this time round - it'll be just as brutal, or worse.
Might as well demolish all the bus stops along the DTL corridor. Since the DTL can provide "all the necessary connections to commuters' destinations", what is the point of continuing running buses along the DTL corridor? Might as well withdraw/cut all of them and let's see what happens when the DTL breaks down. No need to consider how much they duplicate the DTL at all. Just withdraw all routes that duplicate the DTL even one small bit senselessly like what they did to NEL 13 years ago.
147 shouldn't even have been left behind, commuters should just suffer and squeeze in the NEL. LTA shouldn't have bothered with the outcry to retain 147 and went ahead with its cut.
Hi mr SBS7557R, who says the DTL can provide all the necessary connections to commuters' destinations??? There are many bus stops in between the DTL that are not served by MRT. They need to be continued to be served by buses. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:
If rationalization is needed to improve the ridership of a newly-opened MRT line, then it proves that there is no need to build the MRT line in the first place, since most commuters would rather continue to use buses than the new MRT line.
This was precisely why the NEL rationalization was that brutal 13 years ago, because LTA wanted to force people to switch to the NEL rather than use public buses due to its poor ridership (about the same as DTL2 right now). So don't come and tell me they won't be brutal this time round - it'll be just as brutal, or worse.
Might as well demolish all the bus stops along the DTL corridor. Since the DTL can provide "all the necessary connections to commuters' destinations", what is the point of continuing running buses along the DTL corridor? Might as well withdraw/cut all of them and let's see what happens when the DTL breaks down. No need to consider how much they duplicate the DTL at all. Just withdraw all routes that duplicate the DTL even one small bit senselessly like what they did to NEL 13 years ago.
147 shouldn't even have been left behind, commuters should just suffer and squeeze in the NEL. LTA shouldn't have bothered with the outcry to retain 147 and went ahead with its cut.
Is this sarcasm?On a more serious note, the authorities who executed NEL rationalisation would probably have regretted seeing NEL trains bursting nowadays. This MAY happen to DTL at anytime (although with a lower probability, considering Sengkang and Punggol had developed a lot in the past 10 years, but this may not really happen to Bukit Panjang).
However, I can sense some places along Upp Bukit Timah and Bukit Timah may have new developments sooner or later... By then all those bus services (that may be possibly rationalised) may be useful again - but the authorities will not revert the rationalise to show how silly they are.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I know it is too late but the routing of DTL2 should have been better, something like:
Yew Tee (crossover pax from NSL)
Keat Hong
Bukit Panjang
Pending
Ngee Ann
Dover
NUH
Alexandra
Bukit Merah Central
SGH
Chinatown and continues via Bugis/Jalan Besar to DTL3.
You need to realise the route of an MRT line is not as simple as that of buses. Tight turns or passing through too many buildings are extremely impossible. Plus, the route you're suggesting is basically too winding for BPJ residents.
-
on ccl also many station like dtl2 empty.
ccl station empty or not have many peop
bartley - lor chuan - caldecott - tehlok blangah.
ewl station empty or not have many peop
chinese garden
nsl station empty or not have many peop
bradell
-
I strongly believe to let the passengers choose their type of ride, not "force rationalise" them by removing buses straight away. By doing so, you're simply wasting $$ spent on those bus service, especially when it's under BSEP.
Such lines are meant to reduce the high demand on buses, be another alternative to travel to/from work and to reduce the number of bus svcs & buses on road.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I know it is too late but the routing of DTL2 should have been better, something like:
Yew Tee (crossover pax from NSL)
Keat Hong
Bukit Panjang
Pending
Ngee Ann
Dover
NUH
Alexandra
Bukit Merah Central
SGH
Chinatown and continues via Bugis/Jalan Besar to DTL3.
I would suggest this instead..
Kranji/Yew Tee > Bukit Panjang > .... > Beauty World(with a new line on the opposite platform)
The new line could extend to NP/SIM, Sunset Way, Dover, Buona Vista(with CCL on the opposite platform)
I believe that such design(different lines on same level, opposite platform like City Hall etc.) would make more people to choose transfering without hesitating.
-
Originally posted by array88:
Is this sarcasm?On a more serious note, the authorities who executed NEL rationalisation would probably have regretted seeing NEL trains bursting nowadays. This MAY happen to DTL at anytime (although with a lower probability, considering Sengkang and Punggol had developed a lot in the past 10 years, but this may not really happen to Bukit Panjang).
However, I can sense some places along Upp Bukit Timah and Bukit Timah may have new developments sooner or later... By then all those bus services (that may be possibly rationalised) may be useful again - but the authorities will not revert the rationalise to show how silly they are.
It is partly sarcasm (regarding the removal of all services along the DTL corridor and cutting sv147).
In all seriousness, the survival of sv147 and many other services that duplicate the eastern leg of EWL (sv2, sv24, sv26 & sv67 - even though sv26 may not be that brilliant an example given that its demand is largely based in Kallang Bahru) had proven that even if a bus service duplicates MRT lines extensively, it does not mean that its passenger demand will drop to the extent that they are not required any more and should be removed. Of course, it is noted that this does not apply to all bus services that heavily duplicate MRT lines.
As mentioned somewhere in this forum before (unsure if it's this thread as well), I would prefer an integration exercise of both buses and MRT (similar to those conducted for the NSL/EWL between 1988 and 1993) that not only see the withdrawal/shortening of duplicating bus services, retaining of duplicating services that remain in high passenger demand, but also the introduction of new bus service connections to adapt to the opening of the new MRT lines. However, I do understand that these integration exercises had also brought about many of the current "long distance" services such as 14 (from integrating with old 92) and 51 (from integrating with old 192). Therefore, more careful planning should be implemented when integrating bus services without causing bus services to become too long in distance.
As mentioned countless times by other forum members, the NEL rationalization was probably too harsh in that sense with only sv147 left behind, leaving Punggol with no direct buses to the CBD and sealing the destiny of express buses which could have potentials to alleviate the passenger demands of NEL. And as mentioned by a senior forum member back in the era, the old sv85 still had "significant passenger demand" before its withdrawal. I'll not go into further detail on this issue again given that its damage is probably not totally reversible and it had been over-discussed in this forum with little to say effects in "reducing" the damage.
With that being said, I do agree with user AJQZC that bus services that heavily duplicate the DTL that see a significant dip in passenger demand should be the ones that are withdrawn/shortened rather than just cutting all heavily-duplicating bus services on surface.
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:
It is partly sarcasm (regarding the removal of all services along the DTL corridor and cutting sv147).
In all seriousness, the survival of sv147 and many other services that duplicate the eastern leg of EWL (sv2, sv24, sv26 & sv67 - even though sv26 may not be that brilliant an example given that its demand is largely based in Kallang Bahru) had proven that even if a bus service duplicates MRT lines extensively, it does not mean that its passenger demand will drop to the extent that they are not required any more and should be removed. Of course, it is noted that this does not apply to all bus services that heavily duplicate MRT lines.
As mentioned somewhere in this forum before (unsure if it's this thread as well), I would prefer an integration exercise of both buses and MRT (similar to those conducted for the NSL/EWL between 1988 and 1993) that not only see the withdrawal/shortening of duplicating bus services, retaining of duplicating services that remain in high passenger demand, but also the introduction of new bus service connections to adapt to the opening of the new MRT lines. However, I do understand that these integration exercises had also brought about many of the current "long distance" services such as 14 (from integrating with old 92) and 51 (from integrating with old 192). Therefore, more careful planning should be implemented when integrating bus services without causing bus services to become too long in distance.
As mentioned countless times by other forum members, the NEL rationalization was probably too harsh in that sense with only sv147 left behind, leaving Punggol with no direct buses to the CBD and sealing the destiny of express buses which could have potentials to alleviate the passenger demands of NEL. And as mentioned by a senior forum member back in the era, the old sv85 still had "significant passenger demand" before its withdrawal. I'll not go into further detail on this issue again given that its damage is probably not totally reversible and it had been over-discussed in this forum with little to say effects in "reducing" the damage.
With that being said, I do agree with user AJQZC that bus services that heavily duplicate the DTL that see a significant dip in passenger demand should be the ones that are withdrawn/shortened rather than just cutting all heavily-duplicating bus services on surface.
Before withdrawal 502 at NE was packed to door...
PACKED TO DOOR...
If it is amended to ply the express sooner and allowed to skip YCK Rd, or even using the KPE, I assure you 501/502 will need at least 70% DDs...
-
Originally posted by array88:
Honestly I don't think 961 has lost its loading. I still observe quite okay loading at TKK towards Woodlands, which proves its unique route still survives well.
Well, just leave it as it is then.
Also, no need for a new Route 68 to cover for the missing sector of Route 67, as Route 65 can do the job. Bedok-Reservoir-Little India has Route 66 as well as upcoming DTL3.
For DTL2, my concerns are mainly for 171 and somewhat for 67. It makes sense to truncate 171 at Beauty World and use 67 to cover for the Newton-Marina Centre portion. Better still if 171 can merge with 180 or 983.
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:
As mentioned countless times by other forum members, the NEL rationalization was probably too harsh in that sense with only sv147 left behind, leaving Punggol with no direct buses to the CBD and sealing the destiny of express buses which could have potentials to alleviate the passenger demands of NEL. And as mentioned by a senior forum member back in the era, the old sv85 still had "significant passenger demand" before its withdrawal. I'll not go into further detail on this issue again given that its damage is probably not totally reversible and it had been over-discussed in this forum with little to say effects in "reducing" the damage.
All thanks to a certain student at the Path Light Academy.
All the same, I had highlighted that PGL had no direct bus to CBD unlike other suburbs back in 3/04. In fact, I only joined SgF to rant about NEL bus route cuts back then. You can find my maiden post in the archives.
-
Originally posted by iveco:
Well, just leave it as it is then.
Also, no need for a new Route 68 to cover for the missing sector of Route 67, as Route 65 can do the job. Bedok-Reservoir-Little India has Route 66 as well as upcoming DTL3.
For DTL2, my concerns are mainly for 171 and somewhat for 67. It makes sense to truncate 171 at Beauty World and use 67 to cover for the Newton-Marina Centre portion. Better still if 171 can merge with 180 or 983.
The downside of merging with 180 and 983 would be the loss of direct link to Beauty World and Dunearn Rd from eastern BPJ.
Actually ... how about letting 171 divert into Hillview Rd/Ave and Hume Ave, and take over 173's route to Toh Tuck and Clementi instead? Then 173 can re-route to loop at Hume Ave and the Dairy Farm estate.
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:
It is partly sarcasm (regarding the removal of all services along the DTL corridor and cutting sv147).
In all seriousness, the survival of sv147 and many other services that duplicate the eastern leg of EWL (sv2, sv24, sv26 & sv67 - even though sv26 may not be that brilliant an example given that its demand is largely based in Kallang Bahru) had proven that even if a bus service duplicates MRT lines extensively, it does not mean that its passenger demand will drop to the extent that they are not required any more and should be removed. Of course, it is noted that this does not apply to all bus services that heavily duplicate MRT lines.
As mentioned somewhere in this forum before (unsure if it's this thread as well), I would prefer an integration exercise of both buses and MRT (similar to those conducted for the NSL/EWL between 1988 and 1993) that not only see the withdrawal/shortening of duplicating bus services, retaining of duplicating services that remain in high passenger demand, but also the introduction of new bus service connections to adapt to the opening of the new MRT lines. However, I do understand that these integration exercises had also brought about many of the current "long distance" services such as 14 (from integrating with old 92) and 51 (from integrating with old 192). Therefore, more careful planning should be implemented when integrating bus services without causing bus services to become too long in distance.
As mentioned countless times by other forum members, the NEL rationalization was probably too harsh in that sense with only sv147 left behind, leaving Punggol with no direct buses to the CBD and sealing the destiny of express buses which could have potentials to alleviate the passenger demands of NEL. And as mentioned by a senior forum member back in the era, the old sv85 still had "significant passenger demand" before its withdrawal. I'll not go into further detail on this issue again given that its damage is probably not totally reversible and it had been over-discussed in this forum with little to say effects in "reducing" the damage.
With that being said, I do agree with user AJQZC that bus services that heavily duplicate the DTL that see a significant dip in passenger demand should be the ones that are withdrawn/shortened rather than just cutting all heavily-duplicating bus services on surface.
I do agree that it should not be rationalized for at least 6 months until they have more credible information on loading pattern to make the decision.
But I have to say that I am a little shocked to see the low loading on DTL2.
-
Originally posted by iveco:
Well, just leave it as it is then.
Also, no need for a new Route 68 to cover for the missing sector of Route 67, as Route 65 can do the job. Bedok-Reservoir-Little India has Route 66 as well as upcoming DTL3.
For DTL2, my concerns are mainly for 171 and somewhat for 67. It makes sense to truncate 171 at Beauty World and use 67 to cover for the Newton-Marina Centre portion. Better still if 171 can merge with 180 or 983.
You simply cannot use 65 to cover the eastern part of 67. Their routes are drastically different. And 67 can get packed to the door at Geylang Rd...
-
All, the full effect of DTL2 will only be full blown 6 months-1 yr after DTL3 is up. There will be many residential areas in the east covered by DTL3. As of now, it is still too early to talk about rationalisation of buses for DTL2. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Actually, for Bukit Gombak, we can re-route 187 to ply into Bukit Gombak, to provide a bus connection between DTL Bukit Paniang station and Bukit Gombak. This would increase the length of the route by a few hundred metres.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
All, the full effect of DTL2 will only be full blown 6 months-1 yr after DTL3 is up. There will be many residential areas in the east covered by DTL3. As of now, it is still too early to talk about rationalisation of buses for DTL2. Cheers. Thanks.
If someone at DTL2 stations is going to DTL3 stations, he/she would not want to waste 20 minutes winding around the city on DTL1. If he is using CCL to connect DTL2 and DTL3, he/she should be already taking DTL2-CCL-EWL now (with bus transfers from EWL if necessary) given the close proximity between EWL and DTL3.
Therefore, I dont think DTL3 will impact the loading of DTL2 and its bus services that much.
-
Originally posted by array88:
If someone at DTL2 stations is going to DTL3 stations, he/she would not want to waste 20 minutes winding around the city on DTL1. If he is using CCL to connect DTL2 and DTL3, he/she should be already taking DTL2-CCL-EWL now (with bus transfers from EWL if necessary) given the close proximity between EWL and DTL3.
Therefore, I dont think DTL3 will impact the loading of DTL2 and its bus services that much.
Hi mr array88, too early to say. The numerous transfers will offset the winding. Most may stick to direct. We shall know in yr 2018. Cheers. Thanks.
-
171 can cut short from Yis-BPJ already.190 can reduce 2 SD slots,700 can cut a duty while 972 can maintain 27-28 buses.960 while can reduce 1 SD duty while convert 2 SD to DD slots.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr array88, too early to say. The numerous transfers will offset the winding. Most may stick to direct. We shall know in yr 2018. Cheers. Thanks.
Even numerous transfers will not take more than 20 minutes (which is the time wasted on DTL1 - 10 stops from Rochor to Jalan Besar!). Personally I know some people commuting between DTL2 and future DTL3, and they already complain about how windy DTL is. They would probably not prefer a direct route even when DTL3 is in operation.