LTA Central Planning (Phase I) – Splitting ultra-long routes
-
Originally posted by tanjun:
It is unclear if a direct spilt is made onto existing long bus routes or a certain "overlapping" route will be allowed during the spilt. If the latter option is taken, the resources consumed will actually be more and wasted in the overlapping.
case-by-case. some routes will need more buses, and certainly for overlapping splits like you've said. other routes will require less as they're cutback due to duplication.
for Phase I it does appear that fleet requirement will increase for most of the proposed services.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
as long as drivers need to park his driver somewhere, he needs a lot. additional routes mean more lots required as more buses need to park, unless you convert all of them to loop service, which defeats the purpose of shortening it in the first place. it'll be worse when their mealbreaks come. can you eat fast enough before the next guy comes? headway will be very huge then. :(
of course, if you're still not convinced, sign up as a timetable scheduler in SBST or SMRT (but SMRT interchanges no parking issues) and try to produce schedules not requiring more than 1 lot for a service at each end (or 2 lots for a long route with jumpbus).
sawtooth berths manage lots in a better manner by pooling them, jumpbus can reduce lots usage during mealbreak hours, but splitting services will not.
True enough, I am not sure of this anyway, how to sign up as a timetable scheduler? Maybe I just simply thought of less amount of bus plying a particular route because it is shorten and there is no need to have the same amount of bus as before, which has a longer route distance in order to maintain the frequency = less use of number of berths which can be channelled into other services.
Put it in this way, would one need like 8 buses to ply on Service 354? Do you think that plying 8 buses on Service 48 is enough? Maybe not so fair because one is loop and the other is 2 directional inter town service. But the total distance tells a lot.
-
Originally posted by tanjun:
It is unclear if a direct spilt is made onto existing long bus routes or a certain "overlapping" route will be allowed during the spilt. If the latter option is taken, the resources consumed will actually be more and wasted in the overlapping.
overlapping portion might see the same resources allocated. frequency and demand of the splitted portion will be a key factor here.Example say i cut 147 into 2 - Hougang to New Bridge Rd and Clementi to Sungei Rd(Loop). Current frequency is 7-9min peak using 33 buses. If its split up the former route may still retain the frequency of 7-9min using 18-20 buses. Current AM Peak run time is 76min to NBR and 65min to Hougang.
The other portion, where demand is lower, can still operate at 10min freq (due to QoS) with 13 buses. Current run time is 58min to Clementi and 60min to Sungei Rd. If not bounded by QoS 11 buses will do.
Whether resources will remain the same, reduce or added also depends on the regulations that the bus service needs to fulfill also.
-
I personally think that the authorities should really collect feedbacks or even observe the demand patterns before they really make the cut.
Take for example, if 147 is going to make the cut, where do you make the cut?
New Bridge Road terminal or Queen Street terminal or even Serangoon Interchange as proposed.
For this route, it is sure to affect many people especially the elderly.
-
Originally posted by Samuel Lee:
True enough, I am not sure of this anyway, how to sign up as a timetable scheduler? Maybe I just simply thought of less amount of bus plying a particular route because it is shorter and there is no need to have the same amount of bus as before, which has a longer route distance in order to maintain the frequency = less use of number of berths which can be channelled into other services.
Put it in this way, would one need like 8 buses to ply on Service 354? Do you think that plying 8 buses on Service 48 is enough? Maybe not so fair because one is loop and the other is 2 directional inter town service. But the total distance tells a lot.
join when there's an opening.
even a one-bus service like 408 and 409 need 1 lot each during normal breaks, and 2 lots each (technically if you count crossover bus) during mealbreaks.
lot usage is inversly proportional to headway. if buses come back frequently you'll need more bays to keep them even if they're going out quickly, as buses cannot depart on-time (the need to pick up passengers, wait for chance to reverse etc).
if service 354 needs only 27 mins (example) to complete a trip & 5 mins (example) to rest, 8 buses will give you 4 mins headway. does the demand for the service warrant 4-min headways?
Sv 48 or Sv 354, what counts is roundtrip running time plus average/indicative layovers.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
Terence, I don't think rail lines can achieve the kind of dominance as people are less willing to walk further in the tropical climate. Subways need to be perceived as efficient and regular; a 6-minute off-peak headway is like Kaohsiung Metro, a three-car two-line system relegated for "exceptional" users who do not yet have the capability to commute by motorcycles or scooters.
That is why the hub-spoke system is effective in cities like Tokyo and European ones, because their rail network is fast, efficient and reliable.
Although the local ones are fast, slightly reliable, but not too efficient. Hub damaged, spoke sure gets affected. The hub needs to be strengthened before the spokes can be placed.
Why Tokyo so 'few' buses (which is not really few, there are other railway companies running bus routes like Keio, Keisei, Keikyu and Kokusai Kyogo) is mainly due to the effective rail network. It was once at over-saturation point (90s to mid 00s), presently just able to cope during rush hours.
That is why they can afford sparse buses, Alan knows this as well haha~
Oh and there goes my 1000th post, spending an average of 1000 minutes posting in this forum... Haha~
-
Generally looking at most cross-country routes, I'm not in favour of splitting them up. Instead of splitting up the routes, LTA should look into the past patterns - what time and day is likely to cause frequency screw-up, then look into deploying more mid-trip buses instead. Looks like this lady MP has not done enough homework or is unsure of the underlying problems before commenting. And is she a public transport user? Does she know public transport better than anyone of us here?
But I'm in favour of removing those long loop services such as svc 36,70M,162M,124,135,155 etc. And I pity these BCs who got to endure such long loop journeys throughout and control their bladder like crazy! Worse still if there's traffic jam! And its not good for the BCs health and they may avoid drinking adequate water and I believe may also reduce their concentration on the roads. One way to remove the loop is to extend the service to terminate at the nearest bus interchange.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
join when there's an opening.
even a one-bus service like 408 and 409 need 1 lot each during normal breaks, and 2 lots each (technically if you count crossover bus) during mealbreaks.
lot usage is inversly proportional to headway. if buses come back frequently you'll need more bays to keep them even if they're going out quickly, as buses cannot depart on-time (the need to pick up passengers, wait for chance to reverse etc).
if service 354 needs only 27 mins (example) to complete a trip & 5 mins (example) to rest, 8 buses will give you 4 mins headway. does the demand for the service warrant 4-min headways?
Sv 48 or Sv 354, what counts is roundtrip running time plus average/indicative layovers.
Wow, this is quite a maths which I not good at.
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
Generally looking at most cross-country routes, I'm not in favour of splitting them up. Instead of splitting up the routes, LTA should look into the past patterns - what time and day is likely to cause frequency screw-up, then look into deploying more mid-trip buses instead. Looks like this lady MP has not done enough homework or is unsure of the underlying problems before commenting. And is she a public transport user? Does she know public transport better than anyone of us here?
But I'm in favour of removing those long loop services such as svc 36,70M,162M,124,135,155 etc. And I pity these BCs who got to endure such long loop journeys throughout and control their bladder like crazy! Worse still if there's traffic jam! And its not good for the BCs health and they may avoid drinking adequate water and I believe may also reduce their concentration on the roads. One way to remove the loop is to extend the service to terminate at the nearest bus interchange.
Actually, some of the routes you mentioned is not really valid. 36 is the notable one. It only plys Changi Airport (And BC gets to rest and somebody else will drive the bus instead), Marine Parade, the CBD (Suntec - City Hall and Orchard are the 2 prominent sub sectors). How long could this be? (Eastern Region Line is planned to have about 12km long) However, I agree that all of these probably have traffic jam issue etc......
-
Originally posted by TIB1224Y:
That is why the hub-spoke system is effective in cities like Tokyo and European ones, because their rail network is fast, efficient and reliable.
Although the local ones are fast, slightly reliable, but not too efficient. Hub damaged, spoke sure gets affected. The hub needs to be strengthened before the spokes can be placed.
Why Tokyo so 'few' buses (which is not really few, there are other railway companies running bus routes like Keio, Keisei, Keikyu and Kokusai Kyogo) is mainly due to the effective rail network. It was once at over-saturation point (90s to mid 00s), presently just able to cope during rush hours.
That is why they can afford sparse buses, Alan knows this as well haha~
Oh and there goes my 1000th post, spending an average of 1000 minutes posting in this forum... Haha~
yes yes.... the people there can walk to the train stations because the distance is too short for spending a fare of like ¥200 to take a bus (comparable to a rail fare of a longer distance), but the distance may not be short in our context.
in fact, i also agree that because most buses do not come often there anyway, people would rather walk. dunno when will go back again.....
congrats on your 1,000th post. i have wasted my youth here then.
-
Originally posted by Samuel Lee:
Actually, some of the routes you mentioned is not really valid. 36 is the notable one. It only plys Changi Airport (And BC gets to rest and somebody else will drive the bus instead), Marine Parade, the CBD (Suntec - City Hall and Orchard are the 2 prominent sub sectors). How long could this be? (Eastern Region Line is planned to have about 12km long) However, I agree that all of these probably have traffic jam issue etc......
BC also gets to rest at marina ctr ter for 5min toilet breaks
-
Originally posted by service_238:
overlapping portion might see the same resources allocated. frequency and demand of the splitted portion will be a key factor here.Example say i cut 147 into 2 - Hougang to New Bridge Rd and Clementi to Sungei Rd(Loop). Current frequency is 7-9min peak using 33 buses. If its split up the former route may still retain the frequency of 7-9min using 18-20 buses. Current AM Peak run time is 76min to NBR and 65min to Hougang.
The other portion, where demand is lower, can still operate at 10min freq (due to QoS) with 13 buses. Current run time is 58min to Clementi and 60min to Sungei Rd. If not bounded by QoS 11 buses will do.
Whether resources will remain the same, reduce or added also depends on the regulations that the bus service needs to fulfill also.
bro, because west side cannot make use of New Bridge Rd going by inverted direction, what if it becomes Clementi - Marina Centre to boost ridership? :( sometimes there just isn't enough terminals in town to do anything nice.
or let 147 merge with 64
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
it's splitting not chopping. fleet size remains, just that resources are reallocated.
Not a very good idea, the population is growing, and by common sense, so must the total number of buses, unless people switch to driving.
-
now the disabled need to change 3 WABs bus to get to their destination? something just doesn't make sense here.
-
In my opinion, cutting a few of these services do indeed benefit the LTA. BUT the inconvenience they cause to the public is worse than their intended benefit. Let's take a few services for example and maybe some things I would suggest if necessary:
If Service 16 were to be cut, it is impossible because though the people travelling to the east (meaning Bedok and Marine Parade) from Bukit Merah is not so demanding, there are indeed people from the Bedok, Marine Parade, Joo Chiat and Dunman stretch who have to travel to places like Nicoll Highway and Orchard. Unless they do shorten 16 to the Stadium Link OR split it into 2 services which terminate at Stadium Link and Marina Centre OR in an extent the commuters are forced to take the CCL.
If Service 61 were to be cut, I wouldn't mind, as VERY FEW people actually bother to even take 61 from Bukit Batok to Kallang Bahru since 985 provides a faster link. For 61, at least splitting the service into 2 would not be as murderous, as the demand is acutally more in certain places than others. For 61, it can be split to terminate at Marina Centre for the Bukit Batok stretch and New Bridge Road for the other.
858 was a service mentioned in the article. But for long-travel distance services like 39, 161, 168, 858, 965, 969 and maybe even 853C and 854, it is impossible to cut them. Because there are sure to be a considerable amount of people travelling from the Point A terminus to the Point B terminus. And for 858, if it were to be shortened, it defeats the purpose of the recent Sembawang amendment. The least they could do is actually allow the drivers to take a 10 minute break at CGA PTB 2 (which is what I saw on the 1st day) before leaving for WRI, thus, making the 170 minute run time actually seem shorter for the drivers.
Lastly, if services were to be split or shortened, the LTA has to take into the consideration of the parking spaces allocated for the bus services as some interchanges are already faced with lack of enough parking space, like Marina Centre Terminal and New Bridge Road terminal to name a few. So the splitting of the services might cause a congestion at the terminals and delay the time even more.
And what's more, what will happen to the drivers of these affected services? If 61 were to be affected, will some drivers be forced to be SMRT Standbys or will they have the alternative choice to go over to an SBST service that follows part of 61's route?
-
my guess is 143 likely will end tpy - hbf. jur - chinatown from what i see.
-
the only thing i can say is that if this happens, our MRT line will be pushed sevely to the limits.
-
i can imagine the poor WAB pax and elderly having to make multiple transfers.
-
Originally posted by AEW5001:
the only thing i can say is that if this happens, our MRT line will be pushed sevely to the limits.
this is singapore. planners use theories not brains.
-
looks like sv63 mark ivs will end up in arbp.
-
Planners all their life have luxurious life,Got big car,Big houses and highly educated.That's why theories more than practical.
-
thanks to the people for complaining. this what will will get..LTA splitting long journey buses..
LTA planning ridiculous.. LTA never think, i'm very pity old/PIW transfering bus to bus / bus to train to bus..
Trains will get more crowded if LTA doing this, splitting long journey buses.
Imagine from Woodlands to Changi Airport take 858, the fastest way to get CGA than trains..
i'm sure no one wanna take feeder service to woodlands take train down to city hall to tanah merah to changi airport..
180 - fastest way to get Bukit Panjang from Lakeside rather than take train to JUR up to CCK then Bukit Panjang..
172 - Fastest way to get CCK from Jalan Bahar rather then bus to JP and train to JUR up to CCK..
imagine 160/170.. -
imagine piw squeezing onto even more crowded train. somemore current nsl ewl train freq from 4pm-5pm in city area is at 6mins. insane. most of the time the loads overflow onto the next trains until 5pm.
-
i was thinking if LTA shld just stay out of this and let both companies decide whether any adjustments are required or not..
-
these are the services which i believe will not be cut
172 180 161 168 966 85 39 858 969 965 700 190 960
i just feel that they should put bus lanes on highways... gives ppl more reason to ditch their cars for the bus.