Fares and "Huge deficit" under GCM "clearly not sustainable"
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr tamago, the intention is good.
In idealistic world, I am all for it. In realistic world, it will not work. Cheers. Thanks.
LTA has sufficient data to run this form of simulation. Their own research has shown an increasing use of transfers, and so feeder to express (and to feeder) transfer might actually work.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
LTA has sufficient data to run this form of simulation. Their own research has shown an increasing use of transfers, and so feeder to express (and to feeder) transfer might actually work.
Hi mr sgbuses, I understand. I also have another meaning inside my earlier sentences that even if they have data, the actual possibility of implementing it is nowhere a possibility. The complete overhaul is made all the more difficult because the network of buses implemented already for 40 over years is already entrenched. Not easy to touch. Moreover there is also the willingness and the boldness of the mindset. It seems to me they will only continue whatever was already done to proceed to do minor adjustments. Nevertheless, it has been good discussing all these with you guys on this topic. Cheers. Thanks.
-
You sure people like to make multiple transfers? It's a chore, and it adds to the travel time.
Anyway, I know in America, bus routes run along common sectors, and as much as possible, the network consists of many t-shapes and straight lines, instead of bus lines all over the place. The purpose is to increase frequency and optimise resources.
In Singapore, we can find such networks at Orchard Road, Jurong West Avenue 1, Bukit Timah Road and Bedok Reservoir Road - in fact that's how our bus routes are planned, right?
-
Honestly, I would like to know, how much are you all willing to spend on public transport every day?
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr tamago, the intention is good.
In idealistic world, I am all for it. In realistic world, it will not work. Cheers. Thanks.
Why say it will not work before it has even been attempted? Don't be like one of those people who criticize the contracting model out of emotional reasons rather than critical and logical reasons.
Yes, LTA can make these bold steps - it is whether they choose to
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Here's why it's penitious to use the failure of NEL rationalisation as the reason to not launch any more rationalisation plans.
The problem with NEL rationalisation lies not with the rationalisation itself, but how it is carried out. By this I EXPLICITLY mean the routes that were being cut.
501 was chopped. 502 was chopped. All the peak period services, vital to relieve the currently overflowing crowds on the NEL, also got chopped. Even 81 and 111 are not spared. Basically the Northeast has nothing out to the city save for 80 and 107, both which are not meant for use to the city anyway. The Northeast is also effectively disconnected from the west in express bus connections.
This is why in times of breakdown, becoming more often as the system ages, the Northeast is thrown into a COMPLETE disaster. The shuttle effectively becomes the only viable alternative. Personally i feel the NEL performs the worst of all lines in terms of crowd management because of this.
Inadequate planning should not be used as a reason to denounce a concept as a whole. Bus rationalisation, if optimised, can be an essential tool to ensure the relevance of bus services in Singapore and maximise benefits for both the operators and the commuters.
It is plain misfortune that the NEL rationalisation has failed to achieve any of these outcomes.
Yes, rationalization should be approahced with the mindset of making the network more seamless and to improve efficiency and connectivity, not the mindset of merely reducing duplication and cutting off seemingly redundant routes.
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
Why say it will not work before it has even been attempted? Don't be like one of those people who criticize the contracting model out of emotional reasons rather than critical and logical reasons.
Yes, LTA can make these bold steps - it is whether they choose to
Hi mr TIB868X, my statements are my opinions. I have my opinion and you have yours. I support BCM. My statements did not belittle BCM when I reply to mr tamago. I always support critical and logical reasons. I benefit from BCM and BSEP too. Have a good day though. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
I personally feel that it is absurd to introduce short trains like these. CCL understandable since it was planned long long ago. But wtf were they thinking with the DTL and TEL?!
Clearly these are services that will have high catchment, and will even serve as TRUNK lines for some sectors. Simultaneously they kept harping on the white paper and whatever "car-free nation". No matter how many trains you inject the system will max out eventually. So spamming the line with trains is clearly not a solution. I think that it is irony at its best. LTA clearly has no bloody idea what it wants to achieve.
The main excuse is they can always add more trains but as you said, there is a limit. There is also no way they can add on more train cars onto individual trains after they max out the number of trains, in order to increase capacity, due to the lack of longer platforms as provisions.
The decision to have 3-car DTL trains and 4-car TEL trains with absolutely no privsions is a failure on many levels - one that may bite us in the long-term.
-
Originally posted by SMB145B:
Garmen flip-floping. Want a hub and spoke system, then build the interchange so dam small. Then later chop route like no tomorrow. Hassle free public transport, yet have to change buses and trains. Because of someone, no more direct bus.
A hub and spoke system with hubs that are way too small is a planning failure on many levels. It is an embarassment. Some of these new hubs such as the integrated transport hubs were built when current interchanges were already overcapacity and these hubs have not helped to improve the overcrowding at all. In fact, the situation has worsened. Even the latest transport hubs such as at Bukit Panjang seem to indicate these capacity problems will not be solved at all.
You know it is a failure when hubs that are too small were given 'extensions' such as at Sengkang and Tampines - essentially splitting the hub into two.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr TIB868X, my statements are my opinions. I have my opinion and you have yours. I support BCM. My statements did not belittle BCM when I reply to mr tamago. I always support critical and logical reasons. I benefit from BCM and BSEP too. Have a good day though. Cheers. Thanks.
No worries. It is important to have an open mind. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
A hub and spoke system with hubs that are way too small is a planning failure on many levels. It is an embarassment. Some of these new hubs such as the integrated transport hubs were built when current interchanges were already overcapacity and these hubs have not helped to improve the overcrowding at all. In fact, the situation has worsoned. Even the latest transport hubs such as at Bukit Panjang seem to indicate these capacity problems will not be solved at all.
You know it is a failure when hubs that are too small were given 'extensions' such as at Sengkang and Tampines - essentially splitting the hub into two.
Hi mr TIB868X, actually I think we cannot use Bukit panjang ITH as a yardstick for gauging. It was already conceived before the BSEP implementation. So by then, they have already no choice but to continue with their plans to build. So now when BSEP is in full swing, many commuters will have realized that it is quite small. We only can use the next ITH as a gauge to see if they have realized that big interchanges of higher capacity are needed. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr TIB868X, actually I think we cannot use Bukit panjang ITH as a yardstick for gauging. It was already conceived before the BSEP implementation. So by then, they have already no choice but to continue with their plans to build. So now when BSEP is in full swing, many commuters will have realized that it is quite small. We only can use the next ITH as a gauge to see if they have realized that big interchanges of higher capacity are needed. Cheers. Thanks.
I partly agree - but it is not impossible back then to make provisions for an increasing population and an increasing number of bus routes. These are all long term plans. In long-term planning, I'm sure they would have access to the relevant forecasts.
Or perhaps what has happened has exceeded all forecasts and predictions and now the planners have another few hundreds of headaches.
-
Thats why there is Gali Batu Bus Terminal.
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
I partly agree - but it is not impossible back then to make provisions for an increasing population and an increasing number of bus routes. These are all long term plans. In long-term planning, I'm sure they would have access to the relevant forecasts.
Or perhaps what has happened has exceeded all forecasts and predictions and now the planners have another few hundreds of headaches.
Hi mr TIB868X, I think yishun ITH will serve as a better yardstick for measurement. It will be keenly watched and we will be more concerned as to the no of parking lots, no of bus services, layout, ease of flow of human traffic around interchange, ease of flow of traffic at the immediate roads leading up to interchange, ease of access for bus services (which services to be arranged at which berth), etc. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr TIB868X, I think yishun ITH will serve as a better yardstick for measurement. It will be keenly watched and we will be more concerned as to the no of parking lots, no of bus services, layout, ease of flow of human traffic around interchange, ease of flow of traffic at the immediate roads leading up to interchange, ease of access for bus services (which services to be arranged at which berth), etc. Cheers. Thanks.
Yishun ITH only plan for 46 lots and you figure how..I rather work in an expand open Interchange rather than cramped ITHs which is bad for BC health
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
The main excuse is they can always add more trains but as you said, there is a limit. There is also no way they can add on more train cars onto individual trains after they max out the number of trains, in order to increase capacity, due to the lack of longer platforms as provisions.
The decision to have 3-car DTL trains and 4-car TEL trains with absolutely no privsions is a failure on many levels - one that may bite us in the long-term.
The recent signal outage on CCL is already an ominous sign.
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
A hub and spoke system with hubs that are way too small is a planning failure on many levels. It is an embarassment. Some of these new hubs such as the integrated transport hubs were built when current interchanges were already overcapacity and these hubs have not helped to improve the overcrowding at all. In fact, the situation has worsened. Even the latest transport hubs such as at Bukit Panjang seem to indicate these capacity problems will not be solved at all.
You know it is a failure when hubs that are too small were given 'extensions' such as at Sengkang and Tampines - essentially splitting the hub into two.
Tampines not even due for refurbishment yet.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Wakakaka...and they call the BYD ee lik trick bus..�
How they pronounce "Scania"? What about "Hino"?
-
Originally posted by iveco:
How they pronounce "Scania"? What about "Hino"?
Si Kay Niaa..EeeNo
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
The main excuse is they can always add more trains but as you said, there is a limit. There is also no way they can add on more train cars onto individual trains after they max out the number of trains, in order to increase capacity, due to the lack of longer platforms as provisions.
The decision to have 3-car DTL trains and 4-car TEL trains with absolutely no privsions is a failure on many levels - one that may bite us in the long-term.
Yes correct.. If they want to have short trains ag least build longer platforms, so at least when later stages open the system can handle..
-
I just hope that the senior bus fans working for LTA will become Transport minister one day not some overpaid good for nothing clowns
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
I just hope that the senior bus fans working for LTA will become Transport minister one day not some overpaid good for nothing clowns
But not a lobbyist either...Hard to tell. Trump is the perfect example.
Singapore's bus operations is being Transperth-ed big time thanks to them.
-
If Trump can be president, I can be your husband.
-
Originally posted by gekpohboy:
If Trump can be president, I can be your husband.
And CSJ can be Singapore PM.
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
A hub and spoke system with hubs that are way too small is a planning failure on many levels. It is an embarassment. Some of these new hubs such as the integrated transport hubs were built when current interchanges were already overcapacity and these hubs have not helped to improve the overcrowding at all. In fact, the situation has worsened. Even the latest transport hubs such as at Bukit Panjang seem to indicate these capacity problems will not be solved at all.
You know it is a failure when hubs that are too small were given 'extensions' such as at Sengkang and Tampines - essentially splitting the hub into two.
Some ITH are in fact smaller than the old interchanges they replaced.