LTA's Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) (Part 4)
-
If my hypothesis is correct (refer to previous post), here are more supplementary services that LTA MIGHT introduce:
(This list is only based on current SWTs. Some of them may not have a suitable bus terminal or may duplicate other existing services. I'm not saying I'm supportive of all of them.)
3M: Pasir Ris Int - Pasir Ris Dr 1 (Loop)
13M: Yio Chu Kang Int - Bishan MRT (Loop)
27M: Hougang Ctrl Int - Tampines MRT (Loop)
29M: Tampines Int - Tampines Ave 7 (Loop)
31M: Tampines Int - Tanah Merah MRT (Loop)
34M: Punggol Temp Int -> Tampines Ave 5 (Loop)
36M: Siglap Rd - Tomlinson Rd (Loop)
55M: Bishan - Ang Mo Kio Ave 10 (Loop)
60M: Eunos Int - Bedok Reservoir Rd (Loop)
70M: Yio Chu Kang Int - Serangoon MRT (Loop)
100M: Serangoon Int - Aljunied MRT (Loop)
105M: Jurong East Temp Int - Clementi MRT (Loop)
106M: Bukit Batok Int - Clementi MRT (Loop)
109M: Serangoon Int - Hougang Ave 4 (Loop)
112M: Hougang Ctrl Int - Kovan MRT (Loop)
113M: Kovan MRT - Upp Paya Lebar Rd (Loop)
125M: Aljunied MRT - MacPherson Rd (Loop)
138M: Ang Mo Kio Int - Ang Mo Kio Ave 5 (Loop)
145M: Henderson Rd - Redhill MRT (Loop)
154M: Taman Jurong Ter - Lakeside MRT (Loop)
158M: Aljunied MRT - Rhu Cross (Loop)
169M: Woodlands Reg Int - Yishun MRT (Loop)
178M: Woodlands Reg Int - Kranji MRT (Loop)
183M: Jurong East Temp Int - Toh Tuck Ave (Loop)
189M: Bukit Batok Int - Bt Batok St 23 (Loop)
198M: Boon Lay Int - Jurong East Ave 1 (Loop)
857M: Yishun Temp Int - Yio Chu Kang Rd (Loop)
962M: Sembawang Dr - Admiralty St (Loop)
965M: Woodlands Reg Int - Yishun MRT (Loop)
969M: Tampines Int - Yishun MRT (Loop)
975M: Bukit Panjang - Lor Rusuk (Loop)
-
Originally posted by array88:
I was looking at all the SWTs and I realised the objective of supplementary services ('M' variants) under BSEP may be to replace some SWTs.
143M is a replacement for 143A, 63M is a replacement for the old peak-hour 63M, 139M is a replacement for 139A, 123M is a replacement for the old peak-hour 123M, 17A is a replacement for the old peak-hour 17A, 859A/B are replacements for the old midnight 859A, 53M is a replacement for 53A/B, 43M is a replacement and extension of 43A (from Buangkok Green to Serangoon)...
And up to date, LTA has not introduced any 'M' variant that is not based on an original SWT.
Therefore, I think LTA was experimenting with converting these short-distance SWTs to full-day services and see the outcome. However, as we see far less 'M' variants this year than in 2014, I suspect that LTA has seen this experiment as rather unsuccessful and may not be proceeding with introduction of such supplementary services.
Just my 2 cents worth...
Let's analyze M variants that have been introduced:
43M - This was required, but not from Punggol to NEX rather from Buangkok MRT to NEX (loop). The buses go empty between Buangkok and Punggol and obviously so as there is MRT to connect + parent service 43.
63M - makes absolute sense. The question is the number of buses added is too many. Can cut 1-2 buses. The better fix would have been 63 getting DDs but because of Rumm Tunggi, it cannot, so 63M was necessary
53M - this could have been averted by just extending 113 but I think LTA does not want to add any resources to 113 given its poor loading. It does make sense IMO. Though 45A should go. Is it still operational?
123M - this is necessary as well for Bukit Purmei residents, though 1 bus can be cut.
139M - I also support introduction of this M variant and it is doing well
143M - This is the M variant which was just NOT needed. Waste of resources.
859 A/B - This is absolutely needed due to lack of feeder service.
So out of the 7 M variants introduced, 5 are quite good. 1 route should have been shorter and 1 was not required.
-
Originally posted by array88:
If my hypothesis is correct (refer to previous post), here are more supplementary services that LTA MIGHT introduce:
(This list is only based on current SWTs. Some of them may not have a suitable bus terminal or may duplicate other existing services. I'm not saying I'm supportive of all of them.)
3M: Pasir Ris Int - Pasir Ris Dr 1 (Loop)
13M: Yio Chu Kang Int - Bishan MRT (Loop)
27M: Hougang Ctrl Int - Tampines MRT (Loop)
29M: Tampines Int - Tampines Ave 7 (Loop)
31M: Tampines Int - Tanah Merah MRT (Loop)
34M: Punggol Temp Int -> Tampines Ave 5 (Loop)
36M: Siglap Rd - Tomlinson Rd (Loop)
55M: Bishan - Ang Mo Kio Ave 10 (Loop)
60M: Eunos Int - Bedok Reservoir Rd (Loop)
70M: Yio Chu Kang Int - Serangoon MRT (Loop)
100M: Serangoon Int - Aljunied MRT (Loop)
105M: Jurong East Temp Int - Clementi MRT (Loop)
106M: Bukit Batok Int - Clementi MRT (Loop)
109M: Serangoon Int - Hougang Ave 4 (Loop)
112M: Hougang Ctrl Int - Kovan MRT (Loop)
113M: Kovan MRT - Upp Paya Lebar Rd (Loop)
125M: Aljunied MRT - MacPherson Rd (Loop)
138M: Ang Mo Kio Int - Ang Mo Kio Ave 5 (Loop)
145M: Henderson Rd - Redhill MRT (Loop)
154M: Taman Jurong Ter - Lakeside MRT (Loop)
158M: Aljunied MRT - Rhu Cross (Loop)
169M: Woodlands Reg Int - Yishun MRT (Loop)
178M: Woodlands Reg Int - Kranji MRT (Loop)
183M: Jurong East Temp Int - Toh Tuck Ave (Loop)
189M: Bukit Batok Int - Bt Batok St 23 (Loop)
198M: Boon Lay Int - Jurong East Ave 1 (Loop)
857M: Yishun Temp Int - Yio Chu Kang Rd (Loop)
962M: Sembawang Dr - Admiralty St (Loop)
965M: Woodlands Reg Int - Yishun MRT (Loop)
969M: Tampines Int - Yishun MRT (Loop)
975M: Bukit Panjang - Lor Rusuk (Loop)
Most of the ones that were needed have already been launched. The ones that could make sense in future:
36M, 100M, 106M, 158M - all others strictly not required on full day basis.
Note some like 189A, 183B are required only during peak hours to cater to industrial crowds.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Let's analyze M variants that have been introduced:
43M - This was required, but not from Punggol to NEX rather from Buangkok MRT to NEX (loop). The buses go empty between Buangkok and Punggol and obviously so as there is MRT to connect + parent service 43.
63M - makes absolute sense. The question is the number of buses added is too many. Can cut 1-2 buses. The better fix would have been 63 getting DDs but because of Rumm Tunggi, it cannot, so 63M was necessary
53M - this could have been averted by just extending 113 but I think LTA does not want to add any resources to 113 given its poor loading. It does make sense IMO. Though 45A should go. Is it still operational?
123M - this is necessary as well for Bukit Purmei residents, though 1 bus can be cut.
139M - I also support introduction of this M variant and it is doing well
143M - This is the M variant which was just NOT needed. Waste of resources.
859 A/B - This is absolutely needed due to lack of feeder service.
So out of the 7 M variants introduced, 5 are quite good. 1 route should have been shorter and 1 was not required.
LTA refused to extend 113 to Serangoon as it wants to maintain the connection to Hougang Street 11, even though it is just 900metres away from Serangoon Station.
They said there are still quite a number of people that takes 113 from inside Street 11. Not all are willing to walk out to Upper Paya Lebar Road to take 80 to Kovan / Hougang. (80 and 113 uses almost the same time to reach Kovan station). 53 and 53M has successfully taken off the AM loading from 113 but the PM loading for 113 is still heavy.
53M has too many buses IMO. The runtime is very relaxed. Drivers that drive 113 are often deployed to drive 53M btw. The off peak freq for 53M can be as long as 26minutes
-
Originally posted by SBS5010P:
LTA refused to extend 113 to Serangoon as it wants to maintain the connection to Hougang Street 11, even though it is just 900metres away from Serangoon Station.
They said there are still quite a number of people that takes 113 from inside Street 11. Not all are willing to walk out to Upper Paya Lebar Road to take 80 to Kovan / Hougang. (80 and 113 uses almost the same time to reach Kovan station). 53 and 53M has successfully taken off the AM loading from 113 but the PM loading for 113 is still heavy.
53M has too many buses IMO. The runtime is very relaxed. Drivers that drive 113 are often deployed to drive 53M btw. The off peak freq for 53M can be as long as 26minutes
Hi mr SBS5010P, they should have the loading details which will definitely be far more reliable than anyone of us here. Cheers! Thanks.
-
Originally posted by array88:
If my hypothesis is correct (refer to previous post), here are more supplementary services that LTA MIGHT introduce:
(This list is only based on current SWTs. Some of them may not have a suitable bus terminal or may duplicate other existing services. I'm not saying I'm supportive of all of them.)
3M: Pasir Ris Int - Pasir Ris Dr 1 (Loop)
13M: Yio Chu Kang Int - Bishan MRT (Loop)
27M: Hougang Ctrl Int - Tampines MRT (Loop)
29M: Tampines Int - Tampines Ave 7 (Loop)
31M: Tampines Int - Tanah Merah MRT (Loop)
34M: Punggol Temp Int -> Tampines Ave 5 (Loop)
36M: Siglap Rd - Tomlinson Rd (Loop)
55M: Bishan - Ang Mo Kio Ave 10 (Loop)
60M: Eunos Int - Bedok Reservoir Rd (Loop)
70M: Yio Chu Kang Int - Serangoon MRT (Loop)
100M: Serangoon Int - Aljunied MRT (Loop)
105M: Jurong East Temp Int - Clementi MRT (Loop)
106M: Bukit Batok Int - Clementi MRT (Loop)
109M: Serangoon Int - Hougang Ave 4 (Loop)
112M: Hougang Ctrl Int - Kovan MRT (Loop)
113M: Kovan MRT - Upp Paya Lebar Rd (Loop)
125M: Aljunied MRT - MacPherson Rd (Loop)
138M: Ang Mo Kio Int - Ang Mo Kio Ave 5 (Loop)
145M: Henderson Rd - Redhill MRT (Loop)
154M: Taman Jurong Ter - Lakeside MRT (Loop)
158M: Aljunied MRT - Rhu Cross (Loop)
169M: Woodlands Reg Int - Yishun MRT (Loop)
178M: Woodlands Reg Int - Kranji MRT (Loop)
183M: Jurong East Temp Int - Toh Tuck Ave (Loop)
189M: Bukit Batok Int - Bt Batok St 23 (Loop)
198M: Boon Lay Int - Jurong East Ave 1 (Loop)
857M: Yishun Temp Int - Yio Chu Kang Rd (Loop)
962M: Sembawang Dr - Admiralty St (Loop)
965M: Woodlands Reg Int - Yishun MRT (Loop)
969M: Tampines Int - Yishun MRT (Loop)
975M: Bukit Panjang - Lor Rusuk (Loop)
SBS M variants (route with M suffix)= Tibs Special Route (no specific lettering for suffix)
some of these are currently uni-directional SWT, peak hours only or late night last bus(s).
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr SBS5010P, they should have the loading details which will definitely be far more reliable than anyone of us here. Cheers! Thanks.
True but I wonder did they really use the data that well... Some services they launched have seen extremely low loading but they still don't want to make any amendments. Other services have buses added like crazy but most of the buses are under-utilised.
-
Originally posted by array88:
True but I wonder did they really use the data that well... Some services they launched have seen extremely low loading but they still don't want to make any amendments. Other services have buses added like crazy but most of the buses are under-utilised.
Hi mr array88, they have already made it clear from the very start that for BSEP, loading is not the start-all or end-all for the newly introduced bus services. It is we all the people who have that perception that loading is important and keep on expecting them to make adjustment to it. Thus when we don't see any amendment, we have this sense of disbelief that it should not be this way. This is what we termed different set of expectation levels. What we people see is one set of loading (even a few) then we came out of our ideas to amend a portion of the routes which should realistically not be the way. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by array88:
True but I wonder did they really use the data that well... Some services they launched have seen extremely low loading but they still don't want to make any amendments. Other services have buses added like crazy but most of the buses are under-utilised.
I AGREE with you. LTA has made some big mistakes in launching routes, and they haven't used the data well.
But once they have launched the routes, it is difficult for them to make amends. They are scared the few people it serves may not be happy and make loud noise about it. Anyway, they have deep pockets, so they don't bother. If their pockets were limited, they would have to think harder and use resources more wisely.
-
You know, the reason why the Government take over the planning of bus routes is actually to ensure that even the loss-making and less-profitable bus connections are provided.
Previously, when Singapore Bus Services (SBS) and Trans-Island Bus Services (TIBS) planned bus routes, their interest was on profits. As a result, the less-profitable bus connections are usually less provided and the loss-making bus connections are usually not provided.
-
Originally posted by jurongresident:
You know, the reason why the Government take over the planning of bus routes is actually to ensure that even the loss-making and less-profitable bus connections are provided.
Previously, when Singapore Bus Services (SBS) and Trans-Island Bus Services (TIBS) planned bus routes, their interest was on profits. As a result, the less-profitable bus connections are usually less provided and the loss-making bus connections are usually not provided.
How sure are you on this?
Or trying to get people into their MRT trains??
-
At the other forum, people are arguing about the Downtown Line, on why there is no interchange at Rochor station for people to transfer between DTL stage two and DTL stage three. I feel that this is redundant.
I do not know if it is wise to argue about the new bus services launched by the LTA, on why many of them are not profitable, because I feel there is no benefit in doing this.
Well, we could change the bus routes to make them profitable. However, this could affect some bus connections, or even remove them.
Singapore is very good. We have much better bus and train services, as compared to our friends from Malaysia and Indonesia.
Why are we complaining? We should be grateful for what we have, not ask for more.
but in this case, we are asking for less bus connections, just because some bus connections are not making money. Seriously?
Appreciate what we have, because as compared to other people from other countries, we are considered very lucky already.
-
All, people can say all they want that this is that and that is this. However if LTA is going to keep changing bus routes whenever people complained, then it is going to be ridiculous. There are lots of complaints day in and day out. It will never stop too. So unless you want a route that is going to be changed by the weeks, then please wake up. Or else you really cannot please everybody. Person 1 and person 2 will never agree. So let's don't be so assuming that your route 1 is going to be the most profitable and the route 2 is going to be weak in loading. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by jurongresident:
At the other forum, people are arguing about the Downtown Line, on why there is no interchange at Rochor station for people to transfer between DTL stage two and DTL stage three. I feel that this is redundant.
I do not know if it is wise to argue about the new bus services launched by the LTA, on why many of them are not profitable, because I feel there is no benefit in doing this.
Well, we could change the bus routes to make them profitable. However, this could affect some bus connections, or even remove them.
Singapore is very good. We have much better bus and train services, as compared to our friends from Malaysia and Indonesia.
Why are we complaining? We should be grateful for what we have, not ask for more.
but in this case, we are asking for less bus connections, just because some bus connections are not making money. Seriously?
Appreciate what we have, because as compared to other people from other countries, we are considered very lucky already.
there is a way to link DTL2 and DTL3
currently Tibs 67 does DTL3 to DTL2 linkage, though no DTL2 to DTL3 linkage.
why settle for less when you could have asked for more?
-
Buses that never received fleet upgrade/add after BSEP was launched (+3 years now)
1-50
9 - there was capacity add + upgrades on both sv 19/89 doing Changi Cargo but none on sv 9.
16 - after Dakota MRT, loading dropped drastically between Orchard and Dunman road. Current fleet is able to manage loading well, hence agree no add required.
18 - this service operates at 18-20 minutes frequency. It is just a back up service there with limited resources.
24 - surprisingly this Changi Airport service has not received fleet add for years now. I think it could be because of parallelism with MRT + other services along the route that have not substantiated the need
26 - this service actually has pretty decent loading between Geylang and Toa Payoh, but somehow has not got any add/upgrade
27 - due to lack of DDs, already 32 buses had been added by SBST managing the load well. Hence. But 27 really needed DDs. LTA answered with 118.
30 - surprisingly this heavy loading service got no upgrade/fleet add. Have to say SBST has done a good job maintaining the frequency/loading on sv 30
32 - lol. no need. just a back up service. surprisingly even after the Margaret Dr HDBs in Queenstown, both 32 and 122 haven't really picked up its loading. Is it that the occupancy at those HDBs still remains v low?
37 - this service had received DD upgrades just before BSEP was introduced. Having said this I do feel the lone KUB also needs to be converted to DD slot. There is crash loading on this service and needs to be treated like JIS - full fleet DD. The KUB cannot tank the load. Also, sv 4 has relieved loading on sv 37 to some extent.
38 - needs fleet reduction, if any!!
41 - since launched, no add/upgrade and not required. Actually DD-->SD should be done, and fleet add with Citaro as frequency is around 12-15 mins. Fleet should look like 6 SDs, 2 DDs.
-
51-100
51 - no fleet add/upgrade. sv 51 was one service I used to get irritated to see SDs. No more. Now the loading has dropped especially on the Alexandra/Havelock side + around JE/West Coast. Multiple reasons
(1) 120 connects Alexandra Road (NOL Bldg) - Redhill MRT, faster than 51's loop to Queenstown via Queensway
(2) 122 connects Alexandra Road HDBs/condos to connect to Tiong Bahru, faster than 51's connection to Queenstown MRT
(3) 121 connects Ganges to Outram/Tiong Bahru MRT, faster than 51's connection to Queenstown/City Hall/Clarke Quay
(4) 143M/201 have further split the crash loading of Pandan to MRT
56 - doing okay with current fleet. DDs are a luxury on this service.
62 - this service was in dire need of more SD-->DD upgrade or fleet add as the loading was +100 from Upper Serangoon in AM. With 102 and 324 introduction, loading on 62 has been tamed with these introductions. Current fleet doing okay.
64 - current fleet doing okay. Seems like the Queenstown HDBs along Sterling have gone down in occupancy given they are very old. On other part of its route it duplicates 65/66/139 too much
65 - if any, received fleet downgrade of 1 DD -> 1 SD. No more full fleet DD. Again mutliple services plying the same route is the reason. Yet I would prefer 65 to be full fleet DD because there are parts of the route you cannot predict that will get 80+ pax. For those who are interested, these are the high loading sectors:
(1) River Valley Road - Lucky Plaza (Orchard Rd)
(2) Dhoby Ghaut MRT - Ferrar Park MRT
(3) Boon Keng MRT - Macpherson Rd
(4) Circuit Rd - Ubi Ave 2
(5) along Bedok Reservoir Rd
++ has bi-directional loading
66 - got weekend upgrade, no weekday upgrade. Reason same; multiple services in parallel. Now DTL2 also.
73 - if you see the loading, you will know why.
74 - guess already discussed multiple times, should have more SD-->DD but again due to multiple services in parallel, just okay!
80 - this one got capacity downgrade from 1 DD->SD
81 - no fleet add/upgrade. I thought it was quite a decent candidate to get SD->DD
82 - no fleet add/upgrade. Loading says it all.
83 - even after huge surge of HDBs/condos along its route, its loading has dropped.
93 - CCL is the culprit why 93 lost its loading. Its lone DD AM crossover also stopped in end 2014. In turn 94 got 2 DDs.
95 - guess because it is a student service, no fleet add/upgrade
96 - same as above
97 - the DD loading on 97 hugely depends on whether 197 has called or not as the peak loading point is NUH/ITE Dover
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Buses that never received fleet upgrade/add after BSEP was launched (+3 years now)
1-50
9 - there was capacity add + upgrades on both sv 19/89 doing Changi Cargo but none on sv 9.
16 - after Dakota MRT, loading dropped drastically between Orchard and Dunman road. Current fleet is able to manage loading well, hence agree no add required.
18 - this service operates at 18-20 minutes frequency. It is just a back up service there with limited resources.
24 - surprisingly this Changi Airport service has not received fleet add for years now. I think it could be because of parallelism with MRT + other services along the route that have not substantiated the need
26 - this service actually has pretty decent loading between Geylang and Toa Payoh, but somehow has not got any add/upgrade
27 - due to lack of DDs, already 32 buses had been added by SBST managing the load well. Hence. But 27 really needed DDs. LTA answered with 118.
30 - surprisingly this heavy loading service got no upgrade/fleet add. Have to say SBST has done a good job maintaining the frequency/loading on sv 30
32 - lol. no need. just a back up service. surprisingly even after the Margaret Dr HDBs in Queenstown, both 32 and 122 haven't really picked up its loading. Is it that the occupancy at those HDBs still remains v low?
37 - this service had received DD upgrades just before BSEP was introduced. Having said this I do feel the lone KUB also needs to be converted to DD slot. There is crash loading on this service and needs to be treated like JIS - full fleet DD. The KUB cannot tank the load. Also, sv 4 has relieved loading on sv 37 to some extent.
38 - needs fleet reduction, if any!!
41 - since launched, no add/upgrade and not required. Actually DD-->SD should be done, and fleet add with Citaro as frequency is around 12-15 mins. Fleet should look like 6 SDs, 2 DDs.
9 - Indeed needs fleet add. Although it can be argued that svc 9's loading from Simei MRT all the way to Airport Cargo may be less than 19/89, 9's loading mainly peaks at Tampines Ave 2/7 and Loyang Ave... Especiall at Ave 2 where it receives a lot of transfer pax. And that's where the DDs can get really packed...16 - Maybe it's time to divert it back to Stadium.
38 - This service is a unique and key inter-town service especially for Simei. Although 20 is there, it doesn't really serve Tampines East CC & Ave 7 which are key transport nodes in Tampines East. Frequency of 20 also depends... And since Eastpoint Mall is open now, expect more people from Tampines / Bedok South shopping there.
And again for Bedok South, 38 provides the fastest link to Bedok MRT. Although there's 12 and 47 to Tanah Merah, not all residents prefer this kind of backtracking... And although there's 229, it's simply too winding.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
51-100
51 - no fleet add/upgrade. sv 51 was one service I used to get irritated to see SDs. No more. Now the loading has dropped especially on the Alexandra/Havelock side + around JE/West Coast. Multiple reasons
(1) 120 connects Alexandra Road (NOL Bldg) - Redhill MRT, faster than 51's loop to Queenstown via Queensway
(2) 122 connects Alexandra Road HDBs/condos to connect to Tiong Bahru, faster than 51's connection to Queenstown MRT
(3) 121 connects Ganges to Outram/Tiong Bahru MRT, faster than 51's connection to Queenstown/City Hall/Clarke Quay
(4) 143M/201 have further split the crash loading of Pandan to MRT
56 - doing okay with current fleet. DDs are a luxury on this service.
62 - this service was in dire need of more SD-->DD upgrade or fleet add as the loading was +100 from Upper Serangoon in AM. With 102 and 324 introduction, loading on 62 has been tamed with these introductions. Current fleet doing okay.
64 - current fleet doing okay. Seems like the Queenstown HDBs along Sterling have gone down in occupancy given they are very old. On other part of its route it duplicates 65/66/139 too much
65 - if any, received fleet downgrade of 1 DD -> 1 SD. No more full fleet DD. Again mutliple services plying the same route is the reason. Yet I would prefer 65 to be full fleet DD because there are parts of the route you cannot predict that will get 80+ pax. For those who are interested, these are the high loading sectors:
(1) River Valley Road - Lucky Plaza (Orchard Rd)
(2) Dhoby Ghaut MRT - Ferrar Park MRT
(3) Boon Keng MRT - Macpherson Rd
(4) Circuit Rd - Ubi Ave 2
(5) along Bedok Reservoir Rd
++ has bi-directional loading
66 - got weekend upgrade, no weekday upgrade. Reason same; multiple services in parallel. Now DTL2 also.
73 - if you see the loading, you will know why.
74 - guess already discussed multiple times, should have more SD-->DD but again due to multiple services in parallel, just okay!
80 - this one got capacity downgrade from 1 DD->SD
81 - no fleet add/upgrade. I thought it was quite a decent candidate to get SD->DD
82 - no fleet add/upgrade. Loading says it all.
83 - even after huge surge of HDBs/condos along its route, its loading has dropped.
93 - CCL is the culprit why 93 lost its loading. Its lone DD AM crossover also stopped in end 2014. In turn 94 got 2 DDs.
95 - guess because it is a student service, no fleet add/upgrade
96 - same as above
97 - the DD loading on 97 hugely depends on whether 197 has called or not as the peak loading point is NUH/ITE Dover
51 - I don't see why 120/121/122 which get very poor loading at Alexandra will affect 51's loading...95, 96 - Don't think it's right to use "student service" as an excuse to not add buses - if not 179 wouldn't have full fleet DDs. CCL and NUS shuttle are more likely the reason why.
-
Originally posted by array88:
9 - Indeed needs fleet add. Although it can be argued that svc 9's loading from Simei MRT all the way to Airport Cargo may be less than 19/89, 9's loading mainly peaks at Tampines Ave 2/7 and Loyang Ave... Especiall at Ave 2 where it receives a lot of transfer pax. And that's where the DDs can get really packed...16 - Maybe it's time to divert it back to Stadium.
38 - This service is a unique and key inter-town service especially for Simei. Although 20 is there, it doesn't really serve Tampines East CC & Ave 7 which are key transport nodes in Tampines East. Frequency of 20 also depends... And since Eastpoint Mall is open now, expect more people from Tampines / Bedok South shopping there.
And again for Bedok South, 38 provides the fastest link to Bedok MRT. Although there's 12 and 47 to Tanah Merah, not all residents prefer this kind of backtracking... And although there's 229, it's simply too winding.
9 - I think frequency is already quite good and managing well with current fleet.
16 - agree
38 - actually people do prefer back tracking to Tanah Merah instead of taking MRT from Bedok, since 38 goes to interchange and its a long walk to MRT + congestion can be quite bad. Maybe observe PM peak for 38 at interchange and you will know. Each bus gets around 15-25 pax in my last observation. Most are those who alight at Bedok to shop at the mall. 229 is too winding. If 229 is made direct, can already do away with 38 and have it as a Tampines-Simei (loop) service.
51 - The 20-25 pax that have moved to each 120, 121, 122 have definitely caused a dent to sv 51. I listed above the better/closer MRT options these serve than 51
95/96 - ok shouldn't give excuse of student service, but you should know that 179 has also not got fleet add in last 3 years. I believe their capacity is just right to meet the demands.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
9 - I think frequency is already quite good and managing well with current fleet.
16 - agree
38 - actually people do prefer back tracking to Tanah Merah instead of taking MRT from Bedok, since 38 goes to interchange and its a long walk to MRT + congestion can be quite bad. Maybe observe PM peak for 38 at interchange and you will know. Each bus gets around 15-25 pax in my last observation. Most are those who alight at Bedok to shop at the mall. 229 is too winding. If 229 is made direct, can already do away with 38 and have it as a Tampines-Simei (loop) service.
51 - The 20-25 pax that have moved to each 120, 121, 122 have definitely caused a dent to sv 51. I listed above the better/closer MRT options these serve than 51
95/96 - ok shouldn't give excuse of student service, but you should know that 179 has also not got fleet add in last 3 years. I believe their capacity is just right to meet the demands.
Indeed, this backtracking to 38 is one of the few good points of 47, as it passes directly to Tanah Merah but not Bedok MRT.
-
38 should get an SD fleet add... Freq can be terrible
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
38 should get an SD fleet add... Freq can be terrible
That's because the loading is also absolutely terrible.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
That's because the loading is also absolutely terrible.
Haha. If you discussed with enough Simei residents you'd be convinced that it's a cause and effect, and that the poor loading is an effect of the poor frequency rather than a cause.
-
Originally posted by CB2883J:
Haha. If you discussed with enough Simei residents you'd be convinced that it's a cause and effect, and that the poor loading is an effect of the poor frequency rather than a cause.
Actually, the loading in Simei is dependent on whether was there a Svc 20 in front of Svc 38.
-
Originally posted by SBS 9256 X:
Actually, the loading in Simei is dependent on whether was there a Svc 20 in front of Svc 38.
I agree with this. 20 and 38 follow similar routes in the sense that they both detour off Simei Rd (via St 4, St 3, St 1) then back onto Simei Rd. And I know of cases where residents prefer 20 because 1) the buses are newer and “better/high quality” (yes I have literally heard them say that) due to full BSEP fleet, though this remains to be seen due to the addition of Scania perms and 2) shorter route to Tampines Interchange.