DTL rationalisation speculations
-
Originally posted by TIB 585L:
I always take 852 from marymount to yishun during peak hr, fully pack sia coz 851 in front oso packed already. it was packed all the way to khatib mrtDDs on 851 is the solution but 851 loading has dropped. When I had sent note to LTA, it said 90% of buses had less than 60% occupancy of its loading limit. Now not sure if they calculate 60% on 90 pax basis or 60% on 70 pax basis.
But first step should have been to deploy HC buses on 851. Clearly 851 loading is not that high since it is always the service that is chosen to downgrade. 851 in turn also has many alternatives along its route.
-
Originally posted by CZT:
OK i saw the 67 changes. My bad
I feel like fighting for ur bopinion on 170 nonetheless, but please do kindly advice me if i start making no sense thanks. :)
Queen Street is machiam a small cross border bus ter, which idm seeing other services using it, but considering the area is kinda small and boarding can be quite haphazard, parking space is pretty limited too, so i guess if u r thinking of 2 future Sg routes facilitating it i think could be too much for the ter to handle.
I understand how the route itself is pretty empty, but my impression was that foreign workers consider that service as an alternative to go back to their dorms along woodlands road. So in the case of rationalisation, making it express along PIE --> BKE then exit into bukit panjang area --> woodlands road could be an alternative?
They used to my friend. But DTL2 takes them to BPJ in 15-20 minutes and then they have many services to take for few stops. Peak hours I see 170 with less than 20 pax until it reaches BPJ MRT - this just shows DTL has taken its load.
More so the perrenial jam at Newton Circus have even moved people from Little India to Newton to DTL2 even if it one MRT stop given the long time it takes to clear Newton Circus.
This is on ground facts.
-
Originally posted by CZT:
OK i saw the 67 changes. My bad
I feel like fighting for ur opinion on 170 nonetheless, but please do kindly advice me if i start making no sense thanks. :)
Queen Street is machiam a small cross border bus ter, which idm seeing other services using it, but considering the area is kinda small and boarding can be quite haphazard, parking space is pretty limited too, so i guess if u r thinking of 2 future Sg routes facilitating it i think could be too much for the ter to handle.
I understand how the route itself is pretty empty, but my impression was that foreign workers consider that service as an alternative to go back to their dorms along woodlands road. So in the case of rationalisation, making it express along PIE --> BKE then exit into bukit panjang area --> woodlands road could be an alternative?
On your point on making 170 express, isn't 960 already there from Little India to Woodlands Road, already serving the above purpose?
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
DDs on 851 is the solution but 851 loading has dropped. When I had sent note to LTA, it said 90% of buses had less than 60% occupancy of its loading limit. Now not sure if they calculate 60% on 90 pax basis or 60% on 70 pax basis.
But first step should have been to deploy HC buses on 851. Clearly 851 loading is not that high since it is always the service that is chosen to downgrade. 851 in turn also has many alternatives along its route.
Can start with 18 A22 and 8 A95
-
Originally posted by AJQZC:
Ah well, like SBS 9256X and TIB 585L mentioned above. Also witnessed a sizable number of commuters relying on 852 to commute from AMK Ave 6 / Bishan area to BB on weekday nights (around 8-9.30pm) quite a while ago.
I don't believe. Sorry. People are just paranoid to change routes here because of their personal preference. If 852 is a backup service like everyone say, then it is the right service to rationalize as there are other "main" services whose capacity can be increased if required.
More so I don't know what your "while ago" means because after DTL2 coming in, even the "superly crowded" 74 has lost pax, no need to mention its similar case with 151, 154 and 156 has gone from bad to disastrous.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I don't believe. Sorry. People are just paranoid to change routes here because of their personal preference. If 852 is a backup service like everyone say, then it is the right service to rationalize as there are other "main" services whose capacity can be increased if required.
More so I don't know what your "while ago" means because after DTL2 coming in, even the "superly crowded" 74 has lost pax, no need to mention its similar case with 151, 154 and 156 has gone from bad to disastrous.
I love it when train kapo majority of bus pax..Less complain about bus overcrowding..
-
Please lock this thread. There is NO point discussing rationalization over here!!
If someone is suggesting rationalization, these are points to remember:
(1) Rationalize a route that is parallel to MRT and has other alternatives
(2) If an alternative is not there, provide another route/modification to cover the part
(3) Rationalize routes where even peak hour loading is low so that it affects fewer customers
(4) Rationalize back up services
(5) When merging services make sure the loading on two different parts of the merged service are consistent. Don't give insane suggestions to merge 178 and 180 for instance.
(6) Don't compare 170 as a back up service to 2/147 that have high DD worthy loading where as 170 has <20 pax during peak b/w Queens St and BPJ.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Please lock this thread. There is NO point discussing rationalization over here!!
If someone is suggesting rationalization, these are points to remember:
(1) Rationalize a route that is parallel to MRT and has other alternatives
(2) If an alternative is not there, provide another route/modification to cover the part
(3) Rationalize routes where even peak hour loading is low so that it affects fewer customers
(4) Rationalize back up services
(5) When merging services make sure the loading on two different parts of the merged service are consistent. Don't give insane suggestions to merge 178 and 180 for instance.
(6) Don't compare 170 as a back up service to 2/147 that have high DD worthy loading where as 170 has <20 pax during peak b/w Queens St and BPJ.
At least wait until gekpohboy post his purple dove here la bro.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Please lock this thread. There is NO point discussing rationalization over here!!
If someone is suggesting rationalization, these are points to remember:
(1) Rationalize a route that is parallel to MRT and has other alternatives
(2) If an alternative is not there, provide another route/modification to cover the part
(3) Rationalize routes where even peak hour loading is low so that it affects fewer customers
(4) Rationalize back up services
(5) When merging services make sure the loading on two different parts of the merged service are consistent. Don't give insane suggestions to merge 178 and 180 for instance.
(6) Don't compare 170 as a back up service to 2/147 that have high DD worthy loading where as 170 has <20 pax during peak b/w Queens St and BPJ.
I understand your sentiment that quite a number of suggestions given are unrealistic / impossible / neglects basic facts etc... but do realize that the purpose of this thread is precisely to discuss the (possible) details of any possible rationalisations, simply because there have been almost no (reasonable) rationalisations done ever since the NEL saga in 2003, and forumers like us are looking forward to the plans that could/would be implemented. (In fact this was why you posted your suggested scheme here in the first place yesterday, no?)
I mean, what is discussed here isn't going to be directly implemented by LTA anyway. There's a lot of forumers here, some with more logistical / bus-operational experience, some with less, this is just a platform for those with less understanding to get the comments and criticisms to understand how things are being done.
Chill bro.
-
Haven't LTA learnt from NEL rationalisation and 76/134? If 170 will be shorten, why they introduced 170A? As long don't touch 170 and 852 can liao. Others do you agree?
-
Originally posted by AJQZC:
I understand your sentiment that quite a number of suggestions given are unrealistic / impossible / neglects basic facts etc... but do realize that the purpose of this thread is precisely to discuss the (possible) details of any possible rationalisations, simply because there have been almost no (reasonable) rationalisations done ever since the NEL saga in 2003, and forumers like us are looking forward to the plans that could/would be implemented. (In fact this was why you posted your suggested scheme here in the first place yesterday, no?)
I mean, what is discussed here isn't going to be directly implemented by LTA anyway. There's a lot of forumers here, some with more logistical / bus-operational experience, some with less, this is just a platform for those with less understanding to get the comments and criticisms to understand how things are being done.
Chill bro.
Hi mr AJQZC, yes totally agree. This thread is for people to discuss so no need to lock. That is the purpose of forums. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Sbs6750E:
Haven’t LTA learnt from NEL rationalisation and 76/134?
If 170 will be shorten, why they introduced 170A?
As long don’t touch 170 and 852 can liao.
Others do you agree?In fact i think 170A is simply rubbish. Can withdraw lah, and given also BusAnalayzer supported his stand for peak with only less than 20 pax, 170A fleet is rly wasting resources.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
At least wait until gekpohboy post his purple dove here la bro.
Hahahaha
wheres your trash dove? -
The only thing that is reply to the feedback to lta
Even for the feedback lta still not working on the feedback
Weaste review of the feedback
-
Originally posted by CZT:
Hahahaha
wheres your trash dove?
Haha -
Guys, bus rationalisation will happen.
The LTA (Land Transport Authority) has already said that with "the opening of Downtown Line 3 by end 2017" and "newer rail lines such as Downtown Line 2", it "is closely reviewing the bus network and considering making changes so that our buses can better serve residents along the lines".
-
Was at Upper Bukit Timah Road yesterday. I realise Bukit Timah area don't have so many people. And the bus I was on (961) has quite average loading. It may be possible to merge Bukit Timah bus routes and use double decker buses instead, which would reduce manpower costs and other expenses such as petrol and diesel.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
At least wait until gekpohboy post his purple dove here la bro.
ha ha ha ha
-
Originally posted by AJQZC:
I understand your sentiment that quite a number of suggestions given are unrealistic / impossible / neglects basic facts etc... but do realize that the purpose of this thread is precisely to discuss the (possible) details of any possible rationalisations, simply because there have been almost no (reasonable) rationalisations done ever since the NEL saga in 2003, and forumers like us are looking forward to the plans that could/would be implemented. (In fact this was why you posted your suggested scheme here in the first place yesterday, no?)
I mean, what is discussed here isn't going to be directly implemented by LTA anyway. There's a lot of forumers here, some with more logistical / bus-operational experience, some with less, this is just a platform for those with less understanding to get the comments and criticisms to understand how things are being done.
Chill bro.
I know but it is frustrating when someone suggests to merge 178 and 180 that have such different loading patterns and frequencies. Or asks 170 to go exactly the same route as 960. You know what I mean!!
-
For all those who live in other areas and are making your suggestions based on what you saw "few years" back or "night time only" or "once in a while", please move your butts to Bukit Timah area, where I currently have 2 live projects.
Loading has dropped on each and every service including the once over-crowded 74. All others have their loading dropped during peak hours to 20-30 pax. Take the buses and you will know.
The loading picks up again at King Albert MRT towards Ngee Ann or Jalan Anak Bukit/Beauty World bus stops for services going to Clementi Road or Bukit Batok. For those towards CCK, Woodlands Road, loading picks up at BPJ MRT.
What does this show?? DTL2 has cannibalized a huge part of the loading. It doesn't mean take away all the services, but instead of having so many running at 20 pax, take away few, and then the buses will at least run with 40 pax. Makes sense or still doesn't?
-
Originally posted by Sbs6750E:
Haven’t LTA learnt from NEL rationalisation and 76/134?
If 170 will be shorten, why they introduced 170A?
As long don’t touch 170 and 852 can liao.
Others do you agree?Don't confuse. 76 and 134 is not case of rationalization. Can you explain how it is rationalization? It was a dumb decision for sure. 170A introduction has nothing to do with loading. It is to manage the fleet with the uncertainty of 170 at checkpoint.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
For all those who live in other areas and are making your suggestions based on what you saw "few years" back or "night time only" or "once in a while", please move your butts to Bukit Timah area, where I currently have 2 live projects.
Loading has dropped on each and every service including the once over-crowded 74. All others have their loading dropped during peak hours to 20-30 pax. Take the buses and you will know.
The loading picks up again at King Albert MRT towards Ngee Ann or Jalan Anak Bukit/Beauty World bus stops for services going to Clementi Road or Bukit Batok. For those towards CCK, Woodlands Road, loading picks up at BPJ MRT.
What does this show?? DTL2 has cannibalized a huge part of the loading. It doesn't mean take away all the services, but instead of having so many running at 20 pax, take away few, and then the buses will at least run with 40 pax. Makes sense or still doesn't?
Ya lor all the conservatives round here just so stubborn to change.. Some of the svcs really should be made express to skip the entire BT Rd..
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I know but it is frustrating when someone suggests to merge 178 and 180 that have such different loading patterns and frequencies. Or asks 170 to go exactly the same route as 960. You know what I mean!!
Hi mr busanalyser, just ignore or rebut. Cannot ask to lock thread and stop commenting just because of your frustrations caused by 1 or 2 guys. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr busanalyser, just ignore or rebut. Cannot ask to lock thread and stop commenting just because of your frustrations caused by 1 or 2 guys. Cheers. Thanks.
Agree with you bro. -
I might think 170 will be cut short to terminate at Gali Batu Bus Terminal in future and 170A will be withdrawn..170X will become 170M instead.Bt Timah loadings in fact has dropped since DTL is in operation,Not because pax didnt like buses but the famous jams during peak hours make them frustrated.