26 Apr, 11:11PM in sunny Singapore!

Bus Contracting Model (part 2)

Subscribe to Bus Contracting Model (part 2) 2,000 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • iveco's Avatar
    17,245 posts since Mar '04
    • Originally posted by SMB128B:

      Tender for the 4th bus package, the Bukit Merah bus package, is now open for bidding. 

      So soon? wasn't it meant to run until 9-18? Anyway, if SBST win i think they should sit out of Hougang altogether. we need the 50% mileage rule just like Perth does. no singular operator should ever have a majority of the market share.

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,313 posts since Nov '03
    • Still hoping for miracle?Dont waste your time la,Its SBST 80%...I'll be suprised if either SMRT or TTS wins especially the former..Authority seems like anti that company

      Edited by carbikebus 29 Apr `17, 6:01AM
  • iveco's Avatar
    17,245 posts since Mar '04
    • SMRT should just sell their bus ops to WTS group. But the latter need to hit low balls in their bidding.

      TT's WA unit was frozen out of Kalamunda after winning Marmion, formerly operated by Hornibrook (t/a Path Transit). The latter now operates bus routes serving Kalamunda region, which covers a large swath stretching from Perth's inner southern suburbs up to the Perth Hills in the east. i think this could not get any fairer.

      Before 2011: TT (WA) 5 packages (Canning, Claremont, Kalamunda, Midland, Southern River); Hornibrook 3 packages (Joondalup, Marmion, Morley - in effect a monopoly of all northern bus routes); Transdev 2 packages (Fremantle, Rockingham).

      Marmion and Joondalup were up for tender and went to TT and Transdev respectively. This meant TT were no longer eligible to defend the territory of Kalamunda when the contract was up in 2013.

      Edited by iveco 29 Apr `17, 12:20AM
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,313 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by iveco:

      SMRT should just sell their bus ops to WTS group. But the latter need to hit low balls in their bidding.

      TT's WA unit was frozen out of Kalamunda after winning Marmion, formerly operated by Hornibrook (t/a Path Transit). The latter now operates bus routes serving Kalamunda region, which covers a large swath stretching from Perth's inner southern suburbs up to the Perth Hills in the east. i think this could not get any fairer.

      Before 2011: TT (WA) 5 packages (Canning, Claremont, Kalamunda, Midland, Southern River); Hornibrook 3 packages (Joondalup, Marmion, Morley - in effect a monopoly of all northern bus routes); Transdev 2 packages (Fremantle, Rockingham).

      Marmion and Joondalup were up for tender and went to TT and Transdev respectively. This meant TT were no longer eligible to defend the territory of Kalamunda when the contract was up in 2013.

      Although the package is similiar to WA pls dont forget this is in SG...Brothers in arm

  • SMB145B's Avatar
    2,269 posts since Dec '12
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      Although the package is similiar to WA pls dont forget this is in SG...Brothers in arm

      Well even LTA also playing mahjong with the 4 operators ah?

  • array88's Avatar
    1,489 posts since May '14
    • Originally posted by CZT:

      Are u kidding me bro? Causeway-link? No way they will even be interested in our BCM!

      And carbikebus always pointed out, experience play a minor part in BCM (which i still disagree to some extent), but is the headways and freq that matters.

      Tbh, how many of you guys think that SBS and SMRT are screwing up the cross-border operations so badly that LTA shld srsly consider abt giving it to other operators? (If Trans Star were to bid, if they ever were to, they might have some chance, given they also have cross-border operation experience)

      LTA was the one who's screwing up the cross-border services (particularly 160, 170, 170X) by disallowing BCs to use alternative roads in the event of traffic jam along Woodlands Road.

      (Edited. Sorry that I haven't been there recently)

      Edited by array88 29 Apr `17, 11:59PM
  • TIB868X's Avatar
    1,514 posts since Aug '11
    • Originally posted by array88:

      LTA is the one who's screwing up the cross-border services (particularly 160, 170, 170X) by disallowing BCs to use alternative roads in the event of traffic jam along Woodlands Road.

      Lay off the smack. They have always been using alternative routes avoiding the jam along Woodlands Road whenever needed. Unless you know something that the rest of us do not.

  • TIB 585L's Avatar
    9,255 posts since Apr '11
    • Originally posted by array88:

      LTA is the one who's screwing up the cross-border services (particularly 160, 170, 170X) by disallowing BCs to use alternative roads in the event of traffic jam along Woodlands Road.


      not true. 2 nights ago i saw those 170/170X/160/178 using woodlands centre road instead to go to checkpoint there but still stuck in jam so not much difference

  • SMB1368T's Avatar
    1,257 posts since Mar '16
    • that was actually the past. in fact there are numerous photos which show buses being stranded and passengers walking along WDL rd (abt a few months ago), but now flexible

  • gekpohboy's Avatar
    2,180 posts since Mar '16
    • Actually, to manage the bus service better, it may be better to merge 160, 170, 170* and 950 into one, and remove the bus connection to Larkin Bus Terminal.

      The present loop around the JB CIQ is already redundant enough... if they can remove this loop, that would be great.

      All we need is just a bus that runs between Kranji MRT station and the Johor Bahru custom. That's all.

      Larkin Bus Terminal is for holiday makers... only a few people (around 30) actually take 170 everyday to get from Larkin Bus Terminal to Singapore...

      (and you all drag four posts just to talk about that fucking jam at Woodlands, which is actually not as bad as the jam on the causeway...)

      Edited by gekpohboy 29 Apr `17, 11:08PM
  • SMB145B's Avatar
    2,269 posts since Dec '12
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,313 posts since Nov '03
    • 170X is the best route so far,All LTA need is to built proper parking lots for 170X from Kranji MRT.It would be great if 170 is Queen St Ter-JB Sentral Ter and 170X is Kranji MRT-Larkin Ter.170M should supplement from Queen St-JB Custom at 15-25 mins frequency.950 should extend to Larkin.AC7 should just handover to SMRT and renumbered as 870 from Yishun-JB Sentral

  • CZT's Avatar
    555 posts since Jun '16
    • I feel like slapping Gekpohboy alr. (ok i dun literally mean it but sorry for getting triggered) "remove the bus connection to Larkin Bus Terminal...Larkin Bus Terminla is for holiday makers...only a few people (around 30) actually take 170 everyday to get from Larkin Bus Terminal to Singapore..." I admit i  cannot physically be present at the checkpoint to observe this but at least make comments that make sense like carbikebus. And here are the reasons why:

      1. If u talk abt people commuting to Singapore daily, workers have their blue Bas Pekerja/Bas Kilang and students have their orange Bas Sekolah, and the fact that it is also not convenient for commuters to transfer at Larkin to get out of Singapore, so yes, maybe can remove. --> But bear in mind, the freq of 170 is at abt 10-15 min per bus, so that stretch frm JB CIQ to larkin with standees is justified. Plus, there are also crucial bus services at Larkin (other than express bus services in case udk)

      2. Have you seen how hectic it gets especially it gets to important festive seasons like CNY and hari raya? Yes we have alternatives (CW1,2, SJE), but 170 is still favoured by many due to its cleanliness, reliablity, and convenience (yes, surprisingly even when ppl are in Malaysia). And we are not talking abt practicality, we are talking abt favourism. Commuters dun talk abt practicality, they think abt favourism. Its literally hell in case you havent been there yet. (Consider this: long queues for 170X at Kranji MRT, but not as much for CW1. Why?)

      Yes i agree with you that the loop at JB Sentral is redundant, but personally I think this is the best way: 170X will still continue to go to JB Sentral as well as 160. Reason being some 170X shifts can convert to 170 and proceed to Larkin aft clearing JB Customs, and the fact that 160 freq is also poor, it shldnt be a prob ferrying those 1 or 2 lazy ppl to JB Sentral. 950, like what carbike bus mentioned, shld go to Larkin. And yes, 170X needs parking lots, and i mentioned b4 there ought to be a proper ter to house 170X and CW1 to handle the mess and danger everytime at that bus stop (yes dangerous, literally. 925 long queues and crowd and buses cutting in to the bus stop dangerously. Chaotic). I wont agree to you 170M idea thou.

       

      A qns for carbikebus: Why such thoughts for AC7?

      Edited by CZT 30 Apr `17, 9:00AM
  • iveco's Avatar
    17,245 posts since Mar '04
    • AC7 should extend to Compassvale and be handed to the winner of Hougang contract, provided Transperth's "50% of total service mileage" rule is also used in Singapore and SBST is ruled ineligible to defend Hougang after winning Seletar and (very likely) retaining Bukit Merah.

  • Sbs6750E's Avatar
    1,970 posts since May '15
    • Hoping for a east, Northeast service to JB esp from Tampines, PSR stopping at the TPE bus stop.

  • orange28's Avatar
    221 posts since Feb '10
    • Originally posted by Sbs6750E:

      Hoping for a east, Northeast service to JB esp from Tampines, PSR stopping at the TPE bus stop.

      TS1 would almost do this job nicely!

      But right now it does not stop at that TPE bus stop, previously I believe it did stop in Sengkang and Jalan Kayu, but currently is express from Upper Changi to Woodlands ...

      If TS1 accepts distance fares (even express fares) then I can see it becoming very popular with commuters, especially those staying in Woodlands or those working at Changi Business Park. But right now the fares are very high and act as a barrier to higher ridership IMO ...

  • Sbs6750E's Avatar
    1,970 posts since May '15
    • Originally posted by orange28:

      TS1 would almost do this job nicely!

      But right now it does not stop at that TPE bus stop, previously I believe it did stop in Sengkang and Jalan Kayu, but currently is express from Upper Changi to Woodlands ...

      If TS1 accepts distance fares (even express fares) then I can see it becoming very popular with commuters, especially those staying in Woodlands or those working at Changi Business Park. But right now the fares are very high and act as a barrier to higher ridership IMO ...


      last time it stopped at Compassvale stn.

  • lemon1974's Avatar
    9,561 posts since Dec '04
    • Originally posted by SMB1368T:

      that was actually the past. in fact there are numerous photos which show buses being stranded and passengers walking along WDL rd (abt a few months ago), but now flexible

      No it is not flexible.  No instructions from Lta mean u go via old woodland roads. Wednesday 530pm. More than 10 160/170/170x/170A buses stuck in the jam. Same go for Thursday n Friday. Pity those paxes who board at kranji n then have to alight n walk all the way? 

      If LTA wan buses to use old woodland road, then they should send officers n ask those lorries who refuse to queue up to make u turn 

    • Originally posted by TIB868X:

      Lay off the smack. They have always been using alternative routes avoiding the jam along Woodlands Road whenever needed. Unless you know something that the rest of us do not.

      It all depend on LTA. No instructions mean they can't divert.  There are a lot of facebook photos/posts everyday. Ppl go ask the timekeeper at kranji mrt n they say must get instruction from Lta or else SBST will be penalized. 

    • Originally posted by TIB 585L:


      not true. 2 nights ago i saw those 170/170X/160/178 using woodlands centre road instead to go to checkpoint there but still stuck in jam so not much difference

      There were big jam at the checkpoint that day. Clearance was slow plus more tour buses. The queue of buses was until BKE And thus even buses from woodland centre road can't turn into checkpoint and all jam up 

  • TIB 585L's Avatar
    9,255 posts since Apr '11
    • Originally posted by lemon1974:

      There were big jam at the checkpoint that day. Clearance was slow plus more tour buses. The queue of buses was until BKE And thus even buses from woodland centre road can't turn into checkpoint and all jam up 


      waited for 911 for 40 mins and 3 911E came instead. All stuck in jam. Around 3 911 was stuck when i left Woodlands Centre Rd

  • sgbuses's Avatar
    2,380 posts since Nov '05
    • SBS Transit's loss (if it occurs) will be Causeway Link's gain.

      They have plenty of buses to redeploy from Kuala Lumpur to pick up anyone stranded at the checkpoint while the new operator struggles to figure out how 160/170/170X really works.

      Edited by sgbuses 01 May `17, 12:31PM
  • CZT's Avatar
    555 posts since Jun '16
    • Originally posted by sgbuses:

      SBS Transit's loss (if it occurs) will be Causeway Link's gain.

      They have plenty of buses to redeploy from Kuala Lumpur to pick up anyone stranded at the checkpoint while the new operator struggles to figure out how 160/170/170X really works.

      Yup, and thats my point for Gekpohboy too. (I'm really sorry if i happen to have problem expressing myself clearly haha) Why would u want Causeway Link to monopolise causeway operations? Are they handling it better than we do? Total withdrawal of 170 route worsens the bottleneck. Bear in mind the RTS is yet to be built (and no concrete timeline is given to the public as of yet, its hard to discuss abt the impact as it is not gonna happen in the near future)

  • sgbuses's Avatar
    2,380 posts since Nov '05
    • Originally posted by CZT:

      Yup, and thats my point for Gekpohboy too. (I'm really sorry if i happen to have problem expressing myself clearly haha) Why would u want Causeway Link to monopolise causeway operations? Are they handling it better than we do? Total withdrawal of 170 route worsens the bottleneck. Bear in mind the RTS is yet to be built (and no concrete timeline is given to the public as of yet, its hard to discuss abt the impact as it is not gonna happen in the near future)

      Causeway Link still pocket their fares. Every less ringgit paid riding 170 is every extra ringgit Causeway Link earns. They have more incentive than a GCM operator...

      LTA has no understanding how 170 works in reality.

      The nature of these routes are logical. I am supportive of SBS Transit holding onto these routes, so I am not going to give away anything that give other rivals a chance.

  • CZT's Avatar
    555 posts since Jun '16
    • Originally posted by sgbuses:

      Causeway Link still pocket their fares. Every less ringgit paid riding 170 is every extra ringgit Causeway Link earns. They have more incentive than a GCM operator...

      LTA has no understanding how 170 works in reality.

      The nature of these routes are logical. I am supportive of SBS Transit holding onto these routes, so I am not going to give away anything that give other rivals a chance.

      Hmmm could u explain what u mean by the 2nd para on LTA not understanding the route? And do help me explain to gekpohboy that why 170 shldnt be shortened to JB CIQ, even the Larkin stretch is redundant, due to loss in cost of operations. Thanks. I realise my explainations are flawed :(

Please Login or Signup to reply.