LTA's Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP)
-
Aiyo,everything want DD.Loading high a bit also want DD.Might as well SBS Transit bus fleet should be full DD buses,right? Better right?
-
Originally posted by SBS 6238T:
Aiyo,everything want DD.Loading high a bit also want DD.Might as well SBS Transit bus fleet should be full DD buses,right? Better right?
We are just optimizing the usage of DDs rather than them being deployed to a svc that can be empty like a shell during off peak and peak hours like svc 119. 119 can do with 2 BSEP citaros as the citaros dont even get full.
Sv 325's can also be reduced as i think 9 buses are too much, and overboard as this service dosent get fully loaded during peak hours.
AM peak not really and
PM peak hardly as most of the crowds take 101 instead of taking 325 one whole round of 15-20mins just to reach home.
-
Originally posted by SBS5010P:
Nope. Strange. But i saw 6 buses on 113 today only.. 5010-5013, 921T, 8312Z. As for 119, i only saw 1 DD. I dun get it why they change the ETT and nothing is implemented. Maybe have to wait for evening peak hours? if not then i think they change ett for fun. As for 103, same old fleet but didnt go and check cause im not free today
Change timetable to meet certain peak hours timing. Example would be if the train arrives at 5:22pm, 113 would arrive around 5:26-28pm.
-
Originally posted by SMB66X:
Change timetable to meet certain peak hours timing. Example would be if the train arrives at 5:22pm, 113 would arrive around 5:26-28pm.
How bout 103 and 119?
113 Bcs dont bother to follow the timetable .. sometimes 5 mins early and the next bus is so packed.
-
Originally posted by SBS5010P:
We are just optimizing the usage of DDs rather than them being deployed to a svc that can be empty like a shell during off peak and peak hours like svc 119. 119 can do with 2 BSEP citaros as the citaros dont even get full.
Sv 325's can also be reduced as i think 9 buses are too much, and overboard as this service dosent get fully loaded during peak hours.
AM peak not really and
PM peak hardly as most of the crowds take 101 instead of taking 325 one whole round of 15-20mins just to reach home.
Agree on both 119 and 325. 325 loop via HG Ave 2 makes few people take it except those who transfer to other services at HG Ave 2. Bus almost always leaves interchange with just 15-25 pax during peak and most will alight at HG Ave 2. Again at the MRT stop on HG Ave 10, you will see 25-30 pax boarding during PM peak - but that's about it.
AM peak loading > PM peak. PM peak I agree that most people just wait for 101 that almost covers most of 325's route faster. Also, with recent upgrade on 101, more incentive for people to take it.
325 should be modified to start at HG St 21.
-
BSEP for SBST has also slowed down. Buses get BSEP registered but just run around random services. For the last 3-4 months, no proper BSEP allocation. Even sv 45 case is that some bus seems to be removed as per sgwiki.
-
I have noticed a reduce in runtime and rest time for bcs of sv 113. Why must save resources and make bcs suffer? If sbst can upgrade 101 and 119 i dont think why sbs transit cant do the same.
Agree on 325's part. I have been to 325's looping point and buangkok green bus stop and i observed that only 5-10 pax board the bus even though 325 came first. Pax rather wait for 72 which is only a 10 min ride to HCI than a 20min ride to HCI. HG MRT bus stop pax mostly wait for 325 as it is faster rather than taking 101 which is a 5 min walk from the MRT Bus stop and again, yea, 20-30 pax max.
i have also heard casual remarks of sv 119 pax complaining that it is a waste of taxpayer's money and sbs transit is inefficient.
-
Originally posted by SBS5010P:
I have noticed a reduce in runtime and rest time for bcs of sv 113. Why must save resources and make bcs suffer? If sbst can upgrade 101 and 119 i dont think why sbs transit cant do the same.
Agree on 325's part. I have been to 325's looping point and buangkok green bus stop and i observed that only 5-10 pax board the bus even though 325 came first. Pax rather wait for 72 which is only a 10 min ride to HCI than a 20min ride to HCI. HG MRT bus stop pax mostly wait for 325 as it is faster rather than taking 101 which is a 5 min walk from the MRT Bus stop and again, yea, 20-30 pax max.
i have also heard casual remarks of sv 119 pax complaining that it is a waste of taxpayer's money and sbs transit is inefficient.
I think you meant to say the other way round. People wait for 101 and not 325 at HG MRT stop.
-
Repeating again: The only reason 113 has not got DDs is because, DDs are a complete waste between Kovan and HG Int because of its routing. This sector during peak hours also will not get more than 40 pax. Like we say for 119, people will say for 113, whose loading is worse than 119 between Kovan and Hougang.
The peak loading for 119 is at Rivervale where during AM peak, loading can reach 60-65 pax and PM peak loading is around 50-55 pax. For 113, peak loading never exceeds beyond 40 pax b/w Kovan and Hougang.
The sector from Kovan to Lor Ah Soo is the one where 113 loading can exceed 70 pax. Now they will not deploy DDs only for this bit of the route. If they do, they should do crossover from services 89/107/153 that have done their peak route from CBD or Changi Cargo to HG and will go off-service to depot. Just like sv 90 buses do one service of 139A before going off-service.
-
Originally posted by SBS 6238T:
Aiyo,everything want DD.Loading high a bit also want DD.Might as well SBS Transit bus fleet should be full DD buses,right? Better right?
Ofcourse every route does not need DDs but if a route has 65-70+ pax, putting a DD is worth it, if you want to provide a good travel to people. Otherwise you really have to cram in.Some statistics:
Apr 2012: 1054 DD, 1637 SD (39.08% of fleet DD)
Sep 2013: 1215 DD, 1701 SD (41.67% of fleet DD).
This is only counting perm deployed DDs/SDs - does not include SP buses, special buses such as CT18.
If you observe, there is a remarkable increase in fleet of both DD and SD, but DDs have far exceeded the # of SDs deployed on services. SBST should aim for a 50-50 distribution in the next 2 years.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
BSEP for SBST has also slowed down. Buses get BSEP registered but just run around random services. For the last 3-4 months, no proper BSEP allocation. Even sv 45 case is that some bus seems to be removed as per sgwiki.
just wait for taman jurong service lor hahai cant wait for that =)
-
Originally posted by azharjj:
just wait for taman jurong service lor hahai cant wait for that =)
BSEP WEGs that are SP belong to AMDEP, BNDEP, BBDEP. No SLBP yet unless they give the new WEG to SLBP and do depot transfer. Again depends on what Taman Jurong service routing is to see if it needs DD. If the route is like 120/141, hell no need.
-
Initial B. MULTI LANE DRIFTING~
Info from BIS most popular and creative page on Singapore buses~
-
I've noticed earlier during the PM peak that 120 helped to relief the loading at Alexandra Road (near Oueenstown Shopping Center and Anchorpoint) towards Tiong Bahru Road. Only issue is that the direction to the Telok Blangah Heights does not have a good load, while 33 and 195 still had quite a big load... Wonder if 120 is really useless?
-
Let's view sbs 120 in perspective. When sbs 120 was introduced, it was introduced with a few items in mind. I shall not repeat here. It was sort of introduced with the mindset of certain passengers divided along a few sectors of the whole route. Let's say sector A, B, C, D, E. Few (in fact none) will travel from sector A to E (whole journey) for sbs 120. Most passengers for sbs 120 will travel sector A to B or B to C and alight (having reached destination. This is due to the fact that it is a roundabout route. (Something similar to sbs 3). Having said that, sbs tried killing 4 or 5 stones with such a roundabout route for sbs 120 and in fact fulfilled part of its original intention. What do you all think of my explanation?
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Let's view sbs 120 in perspective. When sbs 120 was introduced, it was introduced with a few items in mind. I shall not repeat here. It was sort of introduced with the mindset of certain passengers divided along a few sectors of the whole route. Let's say sector A, B, C, D, E. Few (in fact none) will travel from sector A to E (whole journey) for sbs 120. Most passengers for sbs 120 will travel sector A to B or B to C and alight (having reached destination. This is due to the fact that it is a roundabout route. (Something similar to sbs 3). Having said that, sbs tried killing 4 or 5 stones with such a roundabout route for sbs 120 and in fact fulfilled part of its original intention. What do you all think of my explanation?
First question: You don't seem like a new user since you say "I shall not repeat here". So what was your original id?
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Let's view sbs 120 in perspective. When sbs 120 was introduced, it was introduced with a few items in mind. I shall not repeat here. It was sort of introduced with the mindset of certain passengers divided along a few sectors of the whole route. Let's say sector A, B, C, D, E. Few (in fact none) will travel from sector A to E (whole journey) for sbs 120. Most passengers for sbs 120 will travel sector A to B or B to C and alight (having reached destination. This is due to the fact that it is a roundabout route. (Something similar to sbs 3). Having said that, sbs tried killing 4 or 5 stones with such a roundabout route for sbs 120 and in fact fulfilled part of its original intention. What do you all think of my explanation?
Can you split these sectors for me so that I can have a better understanding of your explanation? -
Originally posted by 23ispolo:
I've noticed earlier during the PM peak that 120 helped to relief the loading at Alexandra Road (near Oueenstown Shopping Center and Anchorpoint) towards Tiong Bahru Road. Only issue is that the direction to the Telok Blangah Heights does not have a good load, while 33 and 195 still had quite a big load... Wonder if 120 is really useless?
33 and 195 do have a significant load on this sector, but nothing like it cannot be managed. The SDs on these services are sufficient to take care of the load. Also, 64 supports from Anchorpoint to Redhill as well. Does supporting this tiny sector in its route make sv 120 really useful? I would argue. -
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Let's view sbs 120 in perspective. When sbs 120 was introduced, it was introduced with a few items in mind. I shall not repeat here. It was sort of introduced with the mindset of certain passengers divided along a few sectors of the whole route. Let's say sector A, B, C, D, E. Few (in fact none) will travel from sector A to E (whole journey) for sbs 120. Most passengers for sbs 120 will travel sector A to B or B to C and alight (having reached destination. This is due to the fact that it is a roundabout route. (Something similar to sbs 3). Having said that, sbs tried killing 4 or 5 stones with such a roundabout route for sbs 120 and in fact fulfilled part of its original intention. What do you all think of my explanation?
Just for your information in case you haven't realised, BSEP routes are planned by LTA, not SBS. SBS is simply the operator here. -
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
33 and 195 do have a significant load on this sector, but nothing like it cannot be managed. The SDs on these services are sufficient to take care of the load. Also, 64 supports from Anchorpoint to Redhill as well. Does supporting this tiny sector in its route make sv 120 really useful? I would argue.I guess it has a good load at Alexandra Road, since it parallels with 33 and 64 to Tiong Bahru Road (Redhill MRT). The other side, however, is not used by many passengers at all. I guess I can only see a good load at Alexandra Road... Otherwise, I don't really see the benefit of 120 much...
-
Originally posted by 23ispolo:
I guess it has a good load at Alexandra Road, since it parallels with 33 and 64 to Tiong Bahru Road (Redhill MRT). The other side, however, is not used by many passengers at all. I guess I can only see a good load at Alexandra Road... Otherwise, I don't really see the benefit of 120 much...
Honestly, if that is the purpose of sv 120, it is complete BS (bull shit). 33/64 can manage the load well. You have 195 to Queenstown as well. If 33 has called Alexandra Shopping Ctr, and 120 follows, you will see it goes empty. -
Ok what if 33/64 always get crowded?Pax will start kpkb wanna all DD fleets,33 need more buses right?So 120 is there for a reason...
-
Those service LTA introduced one SBST only maintain and supply drivers,other cost bourne by LTA same like the two 119 DDs
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Ok what if 33/64 always get crowded?Pax will start kpkb wanna all DD fleets,33 need more buses right?So 120 is there for a reason...
Do they!? I don't see them always crowded. 33 fleet is fine la... Why more buses!?Anyway, 120 route between Alexandra Road and Redhill is fine. The rotue needs to be modified between Redhill and NBR Terminal, Alexandra Road and Tehlok Blangah. In these areas, the bus has single digit pax most of the time, except for few peak hour time slots.
-
I wonder when SMRT going to replace all the old and dirty bendy buses? This morning me take 190 the bus air-con's air is very smelly and look like the bus has no power at all to move on the road.