that same guy complain again last night at the LTA facebook...under the bus carnival post.. now he complain about Sv170/170A.... keep saying that SBST does not operate 170 from Woodland Centre (ie from 170A citaros) and SBST ask these citaros to off service back to Queen St.... very smart to say that there are 65 trips of 170 from woodland centre which are suppose to operate by 170A buses from ETT.... problem is that he did not realise that there might be 100 trips of 170A operating.. and some buses might just off service back to start new trips.....
Originally posted by lemon1974:that same guy complain again last night at the LTA facebook...under the bus carnival post.. now he complain about Sv170/170A.... keep saying that SBST does not operate 170 from Woodland Centre (ie from 170A citaros) and SBST ask these citaros to off service back to Queen St.... very smart to say that there are 65 trips of 170 from woodland centre which are suppose to operate by 170A buses from ETT.... problem is that he did not realise that there might be 100 trips of 170A operating.. and some buses might just off service back to start new trips.....
C'mon, it's already kind enough to have 170A running when their loading is really very very poor. What else do they expect?
I suspect there are hidden motives behind that person's actions. If not, it's hard to understand why anyone would carry out such attacks agains SBST for years. First about 179, then JIS (c'mon it's just a single New Year's Eve), then 182, and now 170...
deleted
Originally posted by lemon1974:that same guy complain again last night at the LTA facebook...under the bus carnival post.. now he complain about Sv170/170A.... keep saying that SBST does not operate 170 from Woodland Centre (ie from 170A citaros) and SBST ask these citaros to off service back to Queen St.... very smart to say that there are 65 trips of 170 from woodland centre which are suppose to operate by 170A buses from ETT.... problem is that he did not realise that there might be 100 trips of 170A operating.. and some buses might just off service back to start new trips.....
Hi mr lemon1974, I think the guy is paranoid. Let him run his own transport company. Every little thing also need complain. It is best that LTA does not bother about him. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by array88:C'mon, it's already kind enough to have 170A running when their loading is really very very poor. What else do they expect?
I suspect there are hidden motives behind that person's actions. If not, it's hard to understand why anyone would carry out such attacks agains SBST for years. First about 179, then JIS (c'mon it's just a single New Years' Eve), then 182, and now 170...
I want to see the lobbyist's reaction if LTA decides in response to split 170 into two routes: 110 Queen Street - Woodlands (via Kranji MRT) and 170 Kranji MRT to Larkin.
Originally posted by sgbuses:I want to see the lobbyist's reaction if LTA decides in response to split 170 into two routes: 110 Queen Street - Woodlands (via Kranji MRT) and 170 Kranji MRT to Larkin.
Hi mr sgbuses, what can the lobbyist do? Suck thumb at most. LTA decision has always been final except for the CCK overhaul in feb 2015. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by lemon1974:that same guy complain again last night at the LTA facebook...under the bus carnival post.. now he complain about Sv170/170A.... keep saying that SBST does not operate 170 from Woodland Centre (ie from 170A citaros) and SBST ask these citaros to off service back to Queen St.... very smart to say that there are 65 trips of 170 from woodland centre which are suppose to operate by 170A buses from ETT.... problem is that he did not realise that there might be 100 trips of 170A operating.. and some buses might just off service back to start new trips.....
That guy already been under pressure and stress...Just wait one fine day the staff at BNL sure shout or wallop him.
as someone who is not utterly obsessed about 170 and 179, i find that 170A has really improved the reliabiltiy of 170's local leg, i find myself taking 170A much more often than last time.
any particular reason they introduced 170A? DTL? also, if anyone knows, were there KUBs kicked out and to where?
In case "Pang Soon Tan" is reading this, here is an advice for "Pang Soon Tan":
"Pang Soon Tan" (or whoever is behind this profile), please refrain from spamming comments on Facebook posts - I wonder why the administrators of LTA Facebook page did not ban "Pang Soon Tan" - maybe they are collecting evidence to use against "Pang Soon Tan"?
"Pang Soon Tan", please also refrain from criticizing any people or organization - you can be sued for defamation.
*grabs pop corn*
(I would not be surprised if this is a mental case, where "Pang Soon Tan" is sent to IMH.)
Originally posted by gekpohboy:In case "Pang Soon Tan" is reading this, here is an advice for "Pang Soon Tan":
"Pang Soon Tan" (or whoever is behind this profile), please refrain from spamming comments on Facebook posts - I wonder why the administrators of LTA Facebook page did not ban "Pang Soon Tan" - maybe they are collecting evidence to use against "Pang Soon Tan"?
"Pang Soon Tan", please also refrain from criticizing any people or organization - you can be sued for defamation.
*grabs pop corn*
(I would not be surprised if this is a mental case, where "Pang Soon Tan" is sent to IMH.)
In any case you are the one who could be mental. He can criticize anything, as long as he has evidence to back up his claims.
Originally posted by TIB868X:as someone who is not utterly obsessed about 170 and 179, i find that 170A has really improved the reliabiltiy of 170's local leg, i find myself taking 170A much more often than last time.
any particular reason they introduced 170A? DTL? also, if anyone knows, were there KUBs kicked out and to where?
To be exact, the current 170A that runs from Queen Street to Woodlands Train Checkpoint is already existent since 2014, run by JB-registered Scania K230UBs...it is only during the opening of DTL then it is officially announced.
Originally posted by TIB868X:In any case you are the one who could be mental. He can criticize anything, as long as he has evidence to back up his claims.
However many of his "evidence" are just claims...
Is it me or should 242 have more than 1 DD running during weekday peak hours? (especially PM peak) 242 loading from BNL starting from 5:30pm to around 7pm (sometimes 5pm already have people queueing for the next bus) can hit around 55-65 per bus, maybe 242 should get 1 SD to DD fleet upgrade for the weekday PM peak crowd heading back to St72/71 and Ave 4/5
My suggestion for fleet changes for 242:
5 SD (full KUB fleet), 2 DD (3121R crossover to 179/A in the morning), the DDs operate only on S shift to cater to the high demand during peak hours as people travel to and from their houses, 242 has the tendancy to bunch very frequently at the looping point (even during off-peak) due to the number of buses deployed.
I dont really understand the reason why LTA let SMRT use a quarter of Loyang depot lots?Amdep taking svc 858 & 969?Park svc 67?
Originally posted by SBS8002T:Is it me or should 242 have more than 1 DD running during weekday peak hours? (especially PM peak) 242 loading from BNL starting from 5:30pm to around 7pm (sometimes 5pm already have people queueing for the next bus) can hit around 55-65 per bus, maybe 242 should get 1 SD to DD fleet upgrade for the weekday PM peak crowd heading back to St72/71 and Ave 4/5
My suggestion for fleet changes for 242:
5 SD (full KUB fleet), 2 DD (3121R crossover to 179/A in the morning), the DDs operate only on S shift to cater to the high demand during peak hours as people travel to and from their houses, 242 has the tendancy to bunch very frequently at the looping point (even during off-peak) due to the number of buses deployed.
242 is doing okay now. So many fleet add it got... 242 was in bad need of Sd->DD conversion a year back... but then like other feeders, 242 was spammed with more SDs.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:242 is doing okay now. So many fleet add it got... 242 was in bad need of Sd->DD conversion a year back... but then like other feeders, 242 was spammed with more SDs.
I still see so many 242 SDs packed to the door during AM peak which is not the case for 241/243 (not for all buses).
Originally posted by array88:I still see so many 242 SDs packed to the door during AM peak which is not the case for 241/243 (not for all buses).
241 almost all buses packed in AM though DDs. 243 spammed with too many buses. 242 the loading is again increasing given that 192 has been removed from ave 4 and 193 can be unpredictable.
The problem is with 193, not 242. Ever since they removed 192 from Jurong West Avenue 4... look at Boon Lay Bus Interchange boarding berths B1 at night. there's a very long queue, and it's leading to bus 193.
Please stop saying that 243 has excessive capacity.
Likewise for 258. It's actually about the same as 181, actually. 181 also during off-peak hours got poor loading on its double decker.
Imagine if they really reduce the capacity (pax/hr) on bus services like 243 and 258 just because of the noise made here. A lot of people will be inconvenienced. It would be irresponsible to reduce bus capacity just because a few people claim that there is excess capacity.
If need be, create SWT of 243, for Jurong West Street 64, 75 and 82. Like I have said earlier (but ignored), the "Gek Poh" section (st 64, 75, 82, 81) of 243 seems to have higher loading than the "Pioneer" section (st 62, st 61, ave 4, PRN). However, 243 cannot be split because of the intra-town connections it provides.
Bus Capacity (pax/hr) should be determined based on actual loading figures.
Only the authorities know the actual loading on the bus services. Only they know how much capacity (pax/hr) there should be on the bus services, based on the actual loading.
If the actual loading per hour is lower than the capacity (pax/hr), then reduce the capacity.
Else if the actual loading per hour is equal or higher than the capacity (pax/hr), then increase the capacity.
Else, leave it alone.
Also, please bear in mind that they never wanted buses to be 100% occupied. If I am not wrong, the maximum loading is 80%. It could be lower.
Originally posted by gekpohboy:The problem is with 193, not 242.
Please stop saying that 243 has excessive capacity.
Likewise for 258. It's actually about the same as 181, actually. 181 also during off-peak hours got poor loading on its double decker.
Imagine if they really reduce the capacity (pax/hr) on bus services like 243 and 258 just because of the noise made here. A lot of people will be inconvenienced. It would be irresponsible to reduce bus capacity just because a few people claim that there is excess capacity.
If need be, create SWT of 243, for Jurong West Street 64, 75 and 82. Like I have said earlier (but ignored), the "Gek Poh" section of 243 seems to have higher loading than the "Pioneer" section. However, 243 cannot be split because of the intra-town connections it provides.
Bus Capacity (pax/hr) should be determined based on actual loading figures.
Only the authorities know the actual loading on the bus services. Only they know how much capacity (pax/hr) there should be on the bus services, based on the actual loading.
If the actual loading per hour is lower than the capacity (pax/hr), then reduce the capacity.
If the actual loading per hour is equal or higher than the capacity (pax/hr), then increase the capacity.
Else, leave it alone.
Also, please bear in mind that they never wanted buses to be 100% occupied. If I am not wrong, the maximum loading is 80%. It could be lower.
The goal is to ensure no passengers are bumped at the peak of the peak hours.
These buses continue to run after this period. Unless you want to buy one BSEP bus to operate one trip for the day and then let it sleep in the depot for 21 hours per day (e.g. 513).
And Pioneer is full of lobbyists. 99, 179/A, 181, 185, 241, 242, 502, you name it. Their blood boils when their "rival" services are getting extra buses and their own service does not arrive within 5 minutes.
You can tell how planners fear this district when they have to start off new services in this area (256, 258) with excess capacity.
Originally posted by sgbuses:The goal is to ensure no passengers are bumped at the peak of the peak hours.
These buses continue to run after this period. Unless you want to buy one BSEP bus to operate one trip for the day and then let it sleep in the depot for 21 hours per day (e.g. 513).
And Pioneer is full of lobbyists. 99, 179/A, 181, 185, 241, 242, 502, you name it. Their blood boils when their "rival" services are getting extra buses and their own service does not arrive within 5 minutes.
You can tell how planners fear this district when they have to start off new services in this area (256, 258) with excess capacity.
I have a feeling that the authorities purposely deploy a full fleet of six double decker buses on bus service 258, with the intention of reducing the capacity later. This is because they were not able to project the demand for this bus service. Same goes for bus service 102 at Seletar. After a while, when the authorities know roughly how is the loading like for these bus services, they may reduce the capacity to match the actual loading.
I do not think it is because district "Pioneer" happens to have many bus lobbyists based here or "specialised" in arguing about the bus services here, that the authorities actually "entertain" them by deploying excessive capacity on the bus services in district "Pioneer". If this happens, there will be a lot of wastage of resources.
By the way, sgbuses, is your HQ somewhere near Pioneer Mall? Also, is busesingapore's HQ based somewhere near Pioneer MRT? ^^ (do you both happen to come from the same secondary school. E.g. boon lay sec, jurong west sec, etcetera?) If your HQ is indeed at Pioneer Mall (while BS HQ is indeed at Pioneer MRT), then why you never fight for the people taking buses at Jurong West Avenue 4, and why that BS group never fight for the people taking buses at Pioneer MRT Station (e.g. ask LTA to bring the blk 651 bus stop nearer to the escalator)? Got so many things waiting for you all to do to help the community, yet you all instead keep engaging in childish things like copying one another. Seriously. =.-
Originally posted by gekpohboy:I have a feeling that the authorities purposely deploy a full fleet of six double decker buses on bus service 258, with the intention of reducing the capacity later. This is because they were not able to project the demand for this bus service. Same goes for bus service 102 at Seletar. After a while, when the authorities know roughly how is the loading like for these bus services, they may reduce the capacity to match the actual loading.
I do not think it is because district "Pioneer" happens to have many bus lobbyists based here or "specialised" in arguing about the bus services here, that the authorities actually "entertain" them by deploying excessive capacity on the bus services in district "Pioneer". If this happens, there will be a lot of wastage of resources.
By the way, sgbuses, is your HQ somewhere near Pioneer Mall? Also, is busesingapore's HQ based somewhere near Pioneer MRT? ^^ If yes, then why you never fight for the people taking buses at Jurong West Avenue 4, and why that BS group never fight for the people taking buses at Pioneer MRT Station (e.g. ask LTA to bring the blk 651 bus stop nearer to the escalator)?
There are some lobbyists who are "specialised" enough to know where it hurts. Otherwise the industry would not be in such a pathetic state.
Neither, not even close to Pioneer. I gave up all hope when I knew who is going to take over the bus services next month. That was the time I knew it's time to get a driving license or walk.
Originally posted by gekpohboy:By the way, sgbuses, is your HQ somewhere near Pioneer Mall? Also, is busesingapore's HQ based somewhere near Pioneer MRT? ^^ (do you both happen to come from the same secondary school. E.g. boon lay sec, jurong west sec, etcetera?) If your HQ is indeed at Pioneer Mall (while BS HQ is indeed at Pioneer MRT), then why you never fight for the people taking buses at Jurong West Avenue 4, and why that BS group never fight for the people taking buses at Pioneer MRT Station (e.g. ask LTA to bring the blk 651 bus stop nearer to the escalator)? Got so many things waiting for you all to do to help the community, yet you all instead keep engaging in childish things like copying one another. Seriously. =.-
I am not Singapore Buses on Facebook. That is a distinct entity. I do not have any presence on social media other than YouTube.
And I think everyone is sick of the skulduggery and NIMBY/YIMBY attitude that has been going on for years.
This industry has essentially become a zero-sum game in the last couple of years. It should not be the case, but the lobbyists are obviously treating it as such and even the bus planners are forced look at it this way as they are receiving vitriol from irate lobbyists.
If you are someone inside the industry and that one particular lobbyist has been complaining about you/your organisation/your company for more than 5 years, will not go away unless he gets what he wants and occupies 25% of your total workload, will you make a route amendment as "requested" just to get this lobbyist off your back?
Originally posted by sgbuses:I am not Singapore Buses on Facebook. That is a distinct entity. I do not have any presence on social media other than YouTube.
And I think everyone is sick of the skulduggery and NIMBY/YIMBY attitude that has been going on for years.
This industry has essentially become a zero-sum game in the last couple of years. It should not be the case, but the lobbyists are obviously treating it as such and even the bus planners are forced look at it this way as they are receiving vitriol from irate lobbyists.
If you are someone inside the industry and that one particular lobbyist has been complaining about you/your organisation/your company for more than 5 years, will not go away unless he gets what he wants and occupies 25% of your total workload, will you make a route amendment as "requested" just to get this lobbyist off your back?
Actually, it depends. I will look into the suggestion/request made and review the related data (e.g. bus loading) to see if it is really the case.
If it is really the case, I will accept it and work on it.
Otherwise, I will reject him in a kind manner. I would explain to him why his suggestions are not feasible.
If this person keeps making the same suggestion/request even after I reject it, it is considered harassment/nuisance.
If this is at personal level, I can apply for protection from that person, as he is harassing me.
If this is at organisation level, I can ban him from commenting and block his emails from coming in.
Simple.
Originally posted by sgbuses:There are some lobbyists who are "specialised" enough to know where it hurts. Otherwise the industry would not be in such a pathetic state.
Neither, not even close to Pioneer. I gave up all hope when I knew who is going to take over the bus services next month. That was the time I knew it's time to get a driving license or walk.
From the way you write, you probably live somewhere along one/some of the bus routes in the Bulim GCM.
During the transition period, there will inevitably be some hiccups, due to reasons like bus drivers forgetting that they need to report to the new depot, new operator never fully anticipate daily bus operations, etcetera.
The good news is that not all the bus routes in the areas of concern are in the Bulim GCM. There's bus routes like 187, 157, 174 and 180, which will not be affected in this transition. :)
In view of the possible hiccups during transition period, it would be good if they can implement the transition only during the June and December school holidays, to minimise the inconvenience caused.
Meanwhile, Bukit Batok SMC having By-Election. If they are smart, they would implement the transition for Bukit Batok bus services at a date that is after the election. Otherwise, it is very dangerous.
The transition for TT is Bukit Batok first then slowly take over J East,For GA its Punggol first then Pasir Ris the following week.