Originally posted by SMB145B:so any ideas for 27, 36 and 858, Boss?
do you want 858C and 858D as well?
go on deploying 20 Wrights on 858 lor.
No. 858 cannot have DD due to height limit at Changi Airport
Originally posted by vicamour:FYI, I have not been agreeing with bendies as the whole system in my past posts because it is going to be unsustainable in the long run because Singapore population keeps increasing. Even for feeders. It's a matter of time feeder services are going to be as congested as those trunk services in the city, as long as people are demanding better frequencies and LTA introducing new bus services. Just observe how congested Yishun interchange with bendies and much less congested it is now, and with more bus services and improved frequencies for the current services.
Please refer to my post above to improve 858. Bendies aren't the only solution to manage the loads.
Do you know why the fares dropped? Because the govt is throwing money to subsidize the bus fares for the moment. It's not like the govt is going to subsidize forever. These 40 bendies are now under SMRT and not LTA. Doesn't it occurred to you that in the past, SMRT is always the first to apply bus fare hikes?
You should know the term economics of scale. Why should LTA maintain its whole fleet of 12m easily and more cost effectively, but pay more to maintain a smaller special fleet at higher costs and absorbing these costs? History has tell you maintaining small fleets proves costly and these small special fleets are normally neglected and left to rot, like Dennis Lances, Darts, Tridents, Hinos, CAC Hispanic O405s, Nissan UDs, just to name a few.
And LTA is standardising the whole fleet of 4,00 0 odd buses to make procurement, maintenance, and switching between operators easier and more efficient and flexible in the future. Why do you want to make their jobs harder just for these few buses?
you just cannot throw away 40 + 200 odd bendies.
like you said
LTA don't just remove any vehicles like that as long as they are roadworthy and don't emit black smoke and pollutants.
Such wasteful approaches can only get public backlash after that. People are watching. The public had complained when the govt helps the bus operators to buy new buses.
If so, why are we still have 20 year old commercial vehicles on the roads now?
200 odd bendies are left to rot like the lances and even the E500s.
i said one size fits all isn't the way to go and neither do we want one step forward, three steps back.
Originally posted by vicamour:So far 36 is quite manageable. Just that GA needs to add more evening trips for 36B.
The problem of 858 is from Woodlands to Airport. A parallel service that I have suggested would help to relieve the loads while adding new links. No need to introduce double deckers unless CAAS and LTA wants to build a DD-friendly bus terminal.
27 should now just use a full fleet of low entry buses instead of low floor buses. Other than that, it's should be pretty manageable with the current frequencies. Still waiting for the rumored 137. Probably it can help to relieve 27 loads in future.
969 is more or less parallel to 858 except the part in Woodlands. while 969 has DDs to cover between Woodlands and TPE stop less the part in woodlands, 858 load is still heavy. intro 968 between Woodlands and Pasir Ris? or 861 between Yishun and Pasir Ris?
Originally posted by SMB145B:you just cannot throw away 40 + 200 odd bendies.
like you said
LTA don't just remove any vehicles like that as long as they are roadworthy and don't emit black smoke and pollutants.
Such wasteful approaches can only get public backlash after that. People are watching. The public had complained when the govt helps the bus operators to buy new buses.
If so, why are we still have 20 year old commercial vehicles on the roads now?
200 odd bendies are left to rot like the lances and even the E500s.
i said one size fits all isn't the way to go and neither do we want one step forward, three steps back.
you just cannot throw away 40 + 200 odd bendies.
like you said
LTA don't just remove any vehicles like that as long as they are roadworthy and don't emit black smoke and pollutants.
Such wasteful approaches can only get public backlash after that. People are watching. The public had complained when the govt helps the bus operators to buy new buses.
If so, why are we still have 20 year old commercial vehicles on the roads now?
200 odd bendies are left to rot like the lances and even the E500s.
i said one size fits all isn't the way to go and neither do we want one step forward, three steps back.
Have these bendies reached 17 years statutory age yet? Sorry but I have not been following the derigistrations. As far as I know, many of them are registered in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those registered in 2000 should be gone by this year. There should be a number of them running for 2-3 years.
Minus the 40 A24s under SMRT ownership. They should be running as long as SMRT owns them. I'm not implying that they should be scrapped immediately. However under LTA bus contracting and fleet ownership, they will only get single and double deckers in future.
The irony is that the old bendies are not scrapped. How to use the E500s? Maybe LTA is at fault for over purchasing but standardisation is still the direction for LTA with 5,000 odd buses under its management in the future.
Originally posted by SMB145B:969 is more or less parallel to 858 except the part in Woodlands. while 969 has DDs to cover between Woodlands and TPE stop less the part in woodlands, 858 load is still heavy. intro 968 between Woodlands and Pasir Ris? or 861 between Yishun and Pasir Ris?
However 858 and 969 serves different destinations. While many people take 969 to Tampines, many people go to the Airport with 858 as well. They serve different crowds to different destinations even they covered partially the same route. Just like 133 and 857.
Thus the problem is still north to airport. So a new route should be at least parallel to the destination as well to relieve the loads, like 972 to Orchard that relieves 190's heaviest loading between Bukit Panjang and Orchard Road.
Originally posted by vicamour:Have these bendies reached 17 years statutory age yet? Sorry but I have not been following the derigistrations. As far as I know, many of them are registered in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those registered in 2000 should be gone by this year. There should be a number of them running for 2-3 years.
Minus the 40 A24s under SMRT ownership. They should be running as long as SMRT owns them. I'm not implying that they should be scrapped immediately. However under LTA bus contracting and fleet ownership, they will only get single and double deckers in future.
The irony is that the old bendies are not scrapped. How to use the E500s? Maybe LTA is at fault for over purchasing but standardisation is still the direction for LTA with 5,000 odd buses under its management in the future.
well the O405Gs are going out soon
with the last 30-35 units that will still go on till 2022
the A24 would last till 2032
Originally posted by vicamour:However 858 and 969 serves different destinations. While many people take 969 to Tampines, many people go to the Airport with 858 as well. They serve different crowds to different destinations even they covered partially the same route. Just like 133 and 857.
Thus the problem is still north to airport. So a new route should be at least parallel to the destination as well to relieve the loads, like 972 to Orchard that relieves 190's heaviest loading between Bukit Panjang and Orchard Road.
eh 133 and 857 is way off.
i previously had 865** route posted here to off load those coming from Yishun. but if the problem exist elsewhere or exist in the shared portion, then nothing helps.
** the route number was as of 08.06.2015 and is only a placeholder, it follows that of yishun trunk routes in the 85x or 86x.
TPE jams on the peak hours would have caused problems for all routes passing through, not just 27, 858 and 969.
Originally posted by vicamour:The problem of bendies is not just on the roads outside but also within bus interchanges and depots. Ever since many bendies are scrapped and replaced by more single and double deckers, bus operators are able to add more buses to improve frequencies of current services and have more buses to introduce more new bus services.
Of course LTA should speed up the trials for the tri-door double decker and introduce a fleet as soon as possible for feeder services.
As much as they take a bigger space, they also move off faster. IMO, the reason why the service frequency is being improved is because there is no bendy to replace the deregistering bendy and so the best solution will be to add 2 SD buses so as to not reduce the capacity.
In cases where DD suit better than bendy, like trunks,no problem - just 1 for 1 and this is indeed a step forward because you saved space on the roads. In cases where DD cant really suit because people dont go up or SDs are used because the route cant use DD, you are indeed replacing a 18m bus by 2X12m buses. It seems like a step forward cos frequency is improved but isnt it infact 3 steps back because you are actually taking more space now, having to hire 2 drivers and also pay double the fuel price. And in the end, this is going to reduce congestion in the interchange? the answer is NO.
Conclusion: One Size does not fit all problems. Once again, bendy everywhere is not the solution for Singapore. But a small fleet to serve the necessary areas is wise. And this area is short distance feeders and routes with height restrictions.
And just FYI, all the buses that are still in operator livery still belong to the operators and LTA is so called leasing them for a fee. So it is not like LTA purposely didnt buy over those bendys. All the CDGEs, SBS plated B9TLs (not under BSEP), KUBs, OCs, SMB plated Citaros, A22s (not under BSEP), SBST Plated Citaros (not under BSEP), E500s (not under BSEP), SMB plated A95s, A24s - they are all owned by operators SBST and SMRTB
Originally posted by randomguy10:As much as they take a bigger space, they also move off faster. IMO, the reason why the service frequency is being improved is because there is no bendy to replace the deregistering bendy and so the best solution will be to add 2 SD buses so as to not reduce the capacity.
In cases where DD suit better than bendy, like trunks,no problem - just 1 for 1 and this is indeed a step forward because you saved space on the roads. In cases where DD cant really suit because people dont go up or SDs are used because the route cant use DD, you are indeed replacing a 18m bus by 2X12m buses. It seems like a step forward cos frequency is improved but isnt it infact 3 steps back because you are actually taking more space now, having to hire 2 drivers and also pay double the fuel price. And in the end, this is going to reduce congestion in the interchange? the answer is NO.
Conclusion: One Size does not fit all problems. Once again, bendy everywhere is not the solution for Singapore. But a small fleet to serve the necessary areas is wise. And this area is short distance feeders and routes with height restrictions.
And just FYI, all the buses that are still in operator livery still belong to the operators and LTA is so called leasing them for a fee. So it is not like LTA purposely didnt buy over those bendys. All the CDGEs, SBS plated B9TLs (not under BSEP), KUBs, OCs, SMB plated Citaros, A22s (not under BSEP), SBST Plated Citaros (not under BSEP), E500s (not under BSEP), SMB plated A95s, A24s - they are all owned by operators SBST and SMRTB
From what I observed in Yishun interchange, the bendies do not actually move off faster as you said. Once one or two bendies are stuck at the alighting berth, almost immediately you see a line of buses queuing behind. But the situation is not that bad with single and double deckers on the alighting berth, because shorter buses have more flexibility in moving in and out of lane with many buses.
One of the main aim for LTA GCM is to improve frequencies for all of the services. 2 single deckers may take up the same spaces of a bendy bus, but at least operators can improve the frequencies by adding more buses, or use more buses for another new service. That's the flexibility they can play with to manage the loads. And two buses doesn't really mean that they will take up the whole space at the same time. Difference in frequencies can allow the two buses to stop at the bus stops at different times and yet improving the frequencies.
The GCM is still at its early stages and places like Woodlands have not seen much improvements, like more new services, yet compared to other places. LTA may probably reshuffle the feeders there (e.g split into G/W) or add new services to relieve the loads. Parts of Woodlands are still not developed yet and thus new services may be needed in future.
There are not many places with height restrictions these days and LTA has been removing these barriers since GCM. As for the airport, it's probably time to build a new bus terminal or restructure the bus infrastructures there. With the upcoming T4, Jewel, and T5, there is a need for more bus services, especially one to the west.
If many other parts of Singapore bus services can operate efficiently without the need of a few special buses, don't see why places like Woodlands cannot improve without the need of bendies. Already seeing great improvements in Yishun, Chua Chu Kang and Bukit Batok with the fleet changes. Like I said earlier, Woodlands estate is still expanding, and it needs more space for more buses for new services. The current arrangement should just be the temporary one for better things to come in future.
Originally posted by SMB145B:eh 133 and 857 is way off.
i previously had 865** route posted here to off load those coming from Yishun. but if the problem exist elsewhere or exist in the shared portion, then nothing helps.
** the route number was as of 08.06.2015 and is only a placeholder, it follows that of yishun trunk routes in the 85x or 86x.
TPE jams on the peak hours would have caused problems for all routes passing through, not just 27, 858 and 969.
The problem with TPE is that LTA refused to build exit points to Sengkang East areas and move the traffic loads away from Punggol Road exits, thus causing a chokepoint at the bus services stopping at those bus stops.
I don't see this in bus stops along AYE.
Originally posted by vicamour:FYI, I have not been agreeing with bendies as the whole system in my past posts because it is going to be unsustainable in the long run because Singapore population keeps increasing. Even for feeders. It's a matter of time feeder services are going to be as congested as those trunk services in the city, as long as people are demanding better frequencies and LTA introducing new bus services. Just observe how congested Yishun interchange with bendies and much less congested it is now, and with more bus services and improved frequencies for the current services.
Please refer to my post above to improve 858. Bendies aren't the only solution to manage the loads.
Do you know why the fares dropped? Because the govt is throwing money to subsidize the bus fares for the moment. It's not like the govt is going to subsidize forever. These 40 bendies are now under SMRT and not LTA. Doesn't it occurred to you that in the past, SMRT is always the first to apply bus fare hikes?
You should know the term economics of scale. Why should LTA maintaining its whole fleet of 12m easily and more cost effectively, but have to pay more to maintain a smaller special fleet at higher costs and absorbing these costs? History has tell you maintaining small fleets proves costly and these small special fleets are normally neglected and left to rot, like Dennis Lances, Darts, Tridents, Hinos, CAC Hispanic O405s, Nissan UDs, just to name a few.
And LTA is standardising the whole fleet of 4,00 0 odd buses to make procurement, maintenance, and switching between operators easier and more efficient and flexible in the future. Why do you want to make their jobs harder just for these few buses?
Wouldn't a parallel svc be akin to a fleet add?
Enlighten me how will that improve the situation, given that a fleet add for 858 has clearly been proven to be in vain?
Originally posted by vicamour:From what I observed in Yishun interchange, the bendies do not actually move off faster as you said. Once one or two bendies are stuck at the alighting berth, almost immediately you see a line of buses queuing behind. But the situation is not that bad with single and double deckers on the alighting berth, because shorter buses have more flexibility in moving in and out of lane with many buses.
One of the main aim for LTA GCM is to improve frequencies for all of the services. 2 single deckers may take up the same spaces of a bendy bus, but at least operators can improve the frequencies by adding more buses, or use more buses for another new service. That's the flexibility they can play with to manage the loads. And two buses doesn't really mean that they will take up the whole space at the same time. Difference in frequencies can allow the two buses to stop at the bus stops at different times and yet improving the frequencies.
The GCM is still at its early stages and places like Woodlands have not seen much improvements, like more new services, yet compared to other places. LTA may probably reshuffle the feeders there (e.g split into G/W) or add new services to relieve the loads. Parts of Woodlands are still not developed yet and thus new services may be needed in future.
There are not many places with height restrictions these days and LTA has been removing these barriers since GCM. As for the airport, it's probably time to build a new bus terminal or restructure the bus infrastructures there. With the upcoming T4, Jewel, and T5, there is a need for more bus services, especially one to the west.
If many other parts of Singapore bus services can operate efficiently without the need of a few special buses, don't see why places like Woodlands cannot improve without the need of bendies. Already seeing great improvements in Yishun, Chua Chu Kang and Bukit Batok with the fleet changes. Like I said earlier, Woodlands estate is still expanding, and it needs more space for more buses for new services. The current arrangement should just be the temporary one for better things to come in future.
You're still evading from the 858 problem.
You're still deluded into the fact that fleet add helps. Youre still deluded into believing a new ter will actually show up in CGA.
Still feel that still a small number of people are very biased against bendies just like LTA...yes they occupy places when stopping but most passengers are happy with that i suppose. Furthermore existing yishun n woodlands interchanges are temporary n when they move to new or upgraded interchanges in near future such congestions wil be solved as they hav more spaces to move.
Originally posted by SMB128B:Wouldn't a parallel svc be akin to a fleet add?
Enlighten me how will that improve the situation, given that a fleet add for 858 has clearly been proven to be in vain?
Are you trying to sidetracking or trying to find more faults?
Is 972 fleet akin to a fleet add to 190 fleet or adding a new service under a different fleet?
A fleet add to current service vs a new service with a new fleet is completely different.
I just again put this into another perspective. If this parallel service is packaged to another operator, is this considered a new fleet for a new service under another operator or a fleet add of SMRT 858?
If that's the case, might as well consolidate the whole fleet in Singapore and call it a fleet add.
And since you feel that fleet add overall is useless whether it is to improve the whole bus system or adding new services or improve frequencies is useless, then might as well cut the whole fleet to 2,000 buses. Go back to the bus services standards back in the 1990s.
Originally posted by SMB128B:You're still evading from the 858 problem.
You're still deluded into the fact that fleet add helps. Youre still deluded into believing a new ter will actually show up in CGA.
I think you are actually very inflexible in changes and keep on harping on one way as a solution. There are actually more solutions with more buses than the current fleet, especially catering into future needs. The solutions are for the future, please think long term.
Deluded? Rather than wasting your time here ranting at B9TLs here and complaining about useless things, why don't you spend time suggesting to LTA for such improvements, especially when Changi Airport is expanding with two new terminals and a new attraction? The problem is real in the future.
Just as how they see it in Boon Lay interchange and improved it with a new Joo Koon interchange.
Improve bus frequencies and add new services when the fleet improves, you complain. Before that, frequencies stretched beyond 15 mins and little incentives for new services, you also complain, ranting LTA giving template answers with no actions.
Seriously what do you want?
Originally posted by A22 fan:Still feel that still a small number of people are very biased against bendies just like LTA...yes they occupy places when stopping but most passengers are happy with that i suppose. Furthermore existing yishun n woodlands interchanges are temporary n when they move to new or upgraded interchanges in near future such congestions wil be solved as they hav more spaces to move.
With improvements in frequencies with more buses, it doesn't really matter to the commuters as long as they do not have to wait too long for buses. I still hear people complaining about frequencies up to 15 mins for some services for now.
You have to know that interchanges are getting smaller or least stayed the same but more buses are deployed with more frequencies and new services, and more in future. The new Bukit Panjang and Yishun interchange are going to be smaller and yet new bus services are needed for more upcoming new developments in these estates.
Is it going to be sustainable in future?
Service standards in 1999 were better because we had less foreign trash taking up valuable space and breathing priceless oxygen on our little red dot of a nation.
Originally posted by vicamour:The problem with TPE is that LTA refused to build exit points to Sengkang East areas and move the traffic loads away from Punggol Road exits, thus causing a chokepoint at the bus services stopping at those bus stops.
I don't see this in bus stops along AYE.
i don't think is solution wor.
adding exits? i don't want another CTE that jams every peak hours.
Originally posted by SMB128B:You're still evading from the 858 problem.
You're still deluded into the fact that fleet add helps. Youre still deluded into believing a new ter will actually show up in CGA.
vermouth still want to siam problems, that's why.
Originally posted by vicamour:Are you trying to sidetracking or trying to find more faults?
Is 972 fleet akin to a fleet add to 190 fleet or adding a new service under a different fleet?
A fleet add to current service vs a new service with a new fleet is completely different.
I just again put this into another perspective. If this parallel service is packaged to another operator, is this considered a new fleet for a new service under another operator or a fleet add of SMRT 858?
If that's the case, might as well consolidate the whole fleet in Singapore and call it a fleet add.
And since you feel that fleet add overall is useless whether it is to improve the whole bus system or adding new services or improve frequencies is useless, then might as well cut the whole fleet to 2,000 buses. Go back to the bus services standards back in the 1990s.
serious? 972 complements 190 but someone just complaints that 972 is taking buses away from 190. what if 865 were to be intro by SBST? that there will be complains again.
Originally posted by vicamour:I think you are actually very inflexible in changes and keep on harping on one way as a solution. There are actually more solutions with more buses than the current fleet, especially catering into future needs. The solutions are for the future, please think long term.
Deluded? Rather than wasting your time here ranting at B9TLs here and complaining about useless things, why don't you spend time suggesting to LTA for such improvements, especially when Changi Airport is expanding with two new terminals and a new attraction? The problem is real in the future.
Just as how they see it in Boon Lay interchange and improved it with a new Joo Koon interchange.
Improve bus frequencies and add new services when the fleet improves, you complain. Before that, frequencies stretched beyond 15 mins and little incentives for new services, you also complain, ranting LTA giving template answers with no actions.
Seriously what do you want?
Boon Lay? you got to be kidding me. i thought by removing 180 bendies is enough. but i heard that 179, 241 is adding Wrights along with 180. this madness has to stop.
Originally posted by iveco:Service standards in 1999 were better because we had less foreign trash taking up valuable space and breathing priceless oxygen on our little red dot of a nation.
the G is adding too many rubbish in this red dot.
Originally posted by A22 fan:Still feel that still a small number of people are very biased against bendies just like LTA...yes they occupy places when stopping but most passengers are happy with that i suppose. Furthermore existing yishun n woodlands interchanges are temporary n when they move to new or upgraded interchanges in near future such congestions wil be solved as they hav more spaces to move.
ah no
the new interchange is very small as compared to the temp int.
Originally posted by vicamour:With improvements in frequencies with more buses, it doesn't really matter to the commuters as long as they do not have to wait too long for buses. I still hear people complaining about frequencies up to 15 mins for some services for now.
You have to know that interchanges are getting smaller or least stayed the same but more buses are deployed with more frequencies and new services, and more in future. The new Bukit Panjang and Yishun interchange are going to be smaller and yet new bus services are needed for more upcoming new developments in these estates.
Is it going to be sustainable in future?
I think Yishun Bus Interchange ITH will be the same when it opens in 2019
Originally posted by Path Light:I think Yishun Bus Interchange ITH will be the same when it opens in 2019
I have seen the floor plan before. It looks smaller with lesser lots.
Originally posted by SMB145B:vermouth still want to siam problems, that's why.
858 route and deployment itself is already a problem. I already stated all the solutions but he keep on insisting his own problems on his own solutions. If every airport service demands a bendy fleet as the only solution, think the bus queue may stretch and delay the whole airport.
Originally posted by SMB145B:serious? 972 complements 190 but someone just complaints that 972 is taking buses away from 190. what if 865 were to be intro by SBST? that there will be complains again.
Maybe 972 has higher loadings these days compared to 190, but 190 still continues to come frequently. At least now no one complains can't board 190 anymore.
Originally posted by SMB145B:Boon Lay? you got to be kidding me. i thought by removing 180 bendies is enough. but i heard that 179, 241 is adding Wrights along with 180. this madness has to stop.
Madness or you want to see more people complaining about the frequencies of those services?