SMRT to get DDs soon
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
LTA has to build more bus interchanges and terminals. Else how is it going to accommodate 80 new services. Most interchanges are bursting already. Moreover, if it does not merge/rationalize services, you are not even going to get relief from existing services. Hence, no option but to build new terminals / interchange. I hope they have thought about it.If not there will be lots of buses like 49 having roadside terminal
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I am not questioning whether 67 deserves DDs. It definitely does, but the route cannot accommodate DDs because of low trees between Newton and Little India. Same reason why 48, 66 do not have DDs.67 is actually a very long route. LTA should really consider splitting it into two. No one takes it for such long distance.
67 --> Tampines Interchange loop @ Rochor Canal (ply DDs)
767 --> CCK Interchange <--> Lor 1 Geylang Terminal
that part of dunearn road have DDs ply before during road diversion...i dun see any public roads cant accomodate DDs as long as there is no any signs of height restriction on that road...if the trees are low, then there should be a height gantry there...
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
I am confused.
What exactly is the Double Decker bus model that SMRT is procuring?
Is it just the 103 units of Alexander Dennis Enviro500 (mentioned in a Facebook post) or does it also include around 100 units of MAN Lion's City DD?
Because according to http://publictransportsg.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/smrts-new-double-deck-buses/ - a rather credible source that has "predicted" many new bus routes - it seems that SMRT is procuring Double Decker buses from two brands (MAN and Alexander Dennis), instead of just that one brand (Alexander Dennis) which we have (more) sources to confirm it.
If it is true that SMRT is procuring two models of Double Decker bus, then this may explain why the dates vary in some sources; Previously, someone shared with me a picture of a SMRT tender document showing that the Double Decker buses will be introduced in August 2014. This week, SMRT say that the Double Decker buses will be introduced in June 2014.
At first, I thought that SMRT is accelerating the procurement process, thus they can introduce the Double Decker buses in June 2014. Now that I have read this article from http://publictransportsg.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/smrts-new-double-deck-buses/ , I think I know why there are two different dates: SMRT is procuring two models of Double Decker bus.
Therefore, instead of around 100 units, SMRT is actually introducing around 203 units of Double Decker bus - by the end of this year.
Currently, according to Wikipedia, including the one with 'SMB' prefix, SMRT has 324 units of Articulated bus.
On the assumption that part of the around 203 units of Double Decker bus will replace some units of Articulated bus, say 75% of them (since BSEP is primarily about enhancing existing bus services, then secondarily about adding new bus services), around 152 units of Articulated bus will be replaced with around 152 units of Double Decker bus by the end of this year.
But then again, I thought SMRT said that "while the double-deckers will be useful for adding capacity on services into the city, they are not as suitable for heavily-used feeder routes" (http://ride.asiaone.com/news/general/story/smrt-get-double-deckers) - which implies that it may continue to have Articulated buses in its fleet?
So, I guess SMRT wants to just reduce the composition of Articulated buses in its fleet, and not totally replace them with Double Decker buses.
Could this be SMRT's only procurement of Double Decker buses at this juncture, and there will be procurement of new Articulated buses next year to replace the units of Articulated bus that would remain next year?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
when i am free, i will go post of facebook saying that there are some internet sources saying that SMRT have ordered 500 DDs and 500 WAB bendies and then i provide you with the link of that facebook page...
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
LTA has to build more bus interchanges and terminals. Else how is it going to accommodate 80 new services. Most interchanges are bursting already. Moreover, if it does not merge/rationalize services, you are not even going to get relief from existing services. Hence, no option but to build new terminals / interchange. I hope they have thought about it.80 new services? not all of them will start at interchange/terminal... if interchange no space, then they can start from depot instead...
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Again, let me re-iterate. There are other services like 857/985 that deserve high capacity buses more than 61 today. The loading on sv 61 has dropped quite a lot (part of it could be people have opted for other services). Problem with 61 is also its long winding route all the way to Eunos.The route of 61 should be shortened to improve on-time arrivals. I suggest even if it does Bukit Batok to Harbourfront Interchange, it caters to most of the load. From there on you have other services.
Hmm ya la oO 857/985 gets the DD, 61 gets the bendy lorh. You can put on split shift also :o
If 61 would to ply between Bukit Batok to HBF, I suggest it to bypass 963 route to shortern 963 journey time and load. Then maybe another service that runs between Bukit Batok to Eunos(within 1h20mins journey)
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
that part of dunearn road have DDs ply before during road diversion...i dun see any public roads cant accomodate DDs as long as there is no any signs of height restriction on that road...if the trees are low, then there should be a height gantry there...
Then please explain why services 48, 66 do not have DDs. I don't see any other point in their route where there could be height restriction. -
Originally posted by TIB429E:
Hmm ya la oO 857/985 gets the DD, 61 gets the bendy lorh. You can put on split shift also :o
If 61 would to ply between Bukit Batok to HBF, I suggest it to bypass 963 route to shortern 963 journey time and load. Then maybe another service that runs between Bukit Batok to Eunos(within 1h20mins journey)
Sorry la... no one takes 61 from Bukit Batok to Eunos... We need shorter routes (also see new routes launched by LTA). Long winding routes like 51, 61, 67 etc. often cause schedule slippage, bus bunching and such long travel times. Gone are those days when people would take 51 from Jurong to Hougang or 67 from CCK to Tampines.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Sorry la... no one takes 61 from Bukit Batok to Eunos... We need shorter routes (also see new routes launched by LTA). Long winding routes like 51, 61, 67 etc. often cause schedule slippage, bus bunching and such long travel times. Gone are those days when people would take 51 from Jurong to Hougang or 67 from CCK to Tampines.
Agreed.
If LTA is really that keen on hub and spoke they would've made 67 semi-express along Bukit Timah Rd.
Eases congestion and also faster travelling times.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I am not questioning whether 67 deserves DDs. It definitely does, but the route cannot accommodate DDs because of low trees between Newton and Little India. Same reason why 48, 66 do not have DDs.67 is actually a very long route. LTA should really consider splitting it into two. No one takes it for such long distance.
67 --> Tampines Interchange loop @ Rochor Canal (ply DDs)
767 --> CCK Interchange <--> Lor 1 Geylang Terminal
67 loop @ rochor canal??? humm sound like 23. and 65. then no point having DD buses for 67. and also the DTL coming so no point having DD buses. and also most ah niles might not even work here, if the work permit no renew.
-
67 by worst can cut its bendy fleets...maybe 4 for each depot once DTL is up.969 only Wl can have DDs cause Amdep is not DD friendly..Roof parking clearance only 4m
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
80 new services? not all of them will start at interchange/terminal... if interchange no space, then they can start from depot instead...
The URA Master Plan 2013/4 say that there will be new bus interchanges at Tampines North, Woodlands North, another part of Hougang, .... not sure if I remembered correctly. but they did say that there will be new bus interchanges in future.
I believe the bulk of the additional new bus services are for the new HDB towns (eg. Tampines North, Punggol Maltida and Bidadari), and/or for the SMRT areas (eg. Yishun & Choa Chu Kang) - which have weaker bus service.
The government is constructing a new (temporary) bus interchange facility at Yishun. I guess they have already made provisions for new bus services over there.
Likewise for the other new bus interchanges in future.
Whereas for Choa Chu Kang, I guess there will be roadside bus terminals, if the Choa Chu Kang bus interchange has no space to accommodate new bus services.
-
Actually, in my opinion, it would be better if the bus routes are re-designed, rather than just the existing routes enhanced and new routes introduced.
If it is about a single bus route not able to meet a large demand, then ask private operators to run the busy stretches - along with the public operators. No need to introduce new bus routes just to relieve the load. Thereafter, if the demand is really too high that even private operators cannot relieve, then the government come and give public operators more buses to enhance the public bus service.
Re-designing (re-drawing) the bus routes would mean re-routing bus routes to cater better to the needs and wants of the people in today's world, because there may be some places that no longer have a demand as significant as in the past, such as schools (due to aging population in the area and there is a smaller proportion of school-going people).
After the bus routes are re-routed, new bus routes can then be created - to compensate the loss of links resulted.
That is for the existing towns. At least this will save resources for service improvements in other expects (eg: new long-distance bus routes that offer direct bus connection).
Whereas for the new towns, it is clear that new bus routes have to be introduced (because there are very little or none), but that is to serve new areas.
Likewise, when the bus routes experience high demand, private operators can be called in to relieve the load from public operators. and if the demand if way too high, the government can come in and give public operators more buses to operate the routes.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Again, let me re-iterate. There are other services like 857/985 that deserve high capacity buses more than 61 today. The loading on sv 61 has dropped quite a lot (part of it could be people have opted for other services). Problem with 61 is also its long winding route all the way to Eunos.The route of 61 should be shortened to improve on-time arrivals. I suggest even if it does Bukit Batok to Harbourfront Interchange, it caters to most of the load. From there on you have other services.
The problem with Route 61 was already there from SBS era. Back then, SBS deployed mainly DDs (brand-new VO3Xs)on 61. -
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Sorry la... no one takes 61 from Bukit Batok to Eunos... We need shorter routes (also see new routes launched by LTA). Long winding routes like 51, 61, 67 etc. often cause schedule slippage, bus bunching and such long travel times. Gone are those days when people would take 51 from Jurong to Hougang or 67 from CCK to Tampines.
What about Route 14? Does it have any shenanigans as well? -
Tampines North i think to cater the new Tampines BTO as well relieve some of Tampines spaces..Punggol Matilda i feel the current one will be replace by a new bigger Interchange cause Punggol isnt that big either.Hougang probably be replace by new bigger basement type int..Bidadari also in 5 years time.Woodlands North more likely same as Tampines North.Simpang not too sure.If CCK gonna have a new bus terminal probably near to the old Keat Hong Camp..Tengah also coming up.SBST need 2 more bus depots or Bus parks and SMRT need another depot and Amdep should be relocated.
-
Buangkok Bus Interchange is confirmed
not sure about the rest
-
Originally posted by wsy1234:
67 loop @ rochor canal??? humm sound like 23. and 65. then no point having DD buses for 67. and also the DTL coming so no point having DD buses. and also most ah niles might not even work here, if the work permit no renew.
67 will be from Tampines to Rochor Canal. If so, it does not duplicate DTL and will still need DDs. 767 from Boon Keng to CCK will duplicate DTL to some extent, yet CCK loads in the morning towards Bukit Timah can be extensive, and hence will need some bendy buses, though some might be cut. -
Originally posted by carbikebus:
67 by worst can cut its bendy fleets…maybe 4 for each depot once DTL is up.969 only Wl can have DDs cause Amdep is not DD friendly..Roof parking clearance only 4m
Actually if WDL makes all its 969 fleet DD, then it is okay if the AMDEP fleet is only rigids. -
Originally posted by iveco:
The problem with Route 61 was already there from SBS era. Back then, SBS deployed mainly DDs (brand-new VO3Xs)on 61.
And yes, you are right. It was a different era, where MRTs were few, traffic was lesser. Hence, people would still take long distance on 61 and DDs made sense. Today, if you deploy DD on 61 it is a priviledge. -
Originally posted by iveco:
What about Route 14? Does it have any shenanigans as well?
7, 14, 196 are also long... but they still cater to non-MRT areas and hence have long distance travelers. So for now, should stay! -
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
Actually, in my opinion, it would be better if the bus routes are re-designed, rather than just the existing routes enhanced and new routes introduced.
If it is about a single bus route not able to meet a large demand, then ask private operators to run the busy stretches - along with the public operators. No need to introduce new bus routes just to relieve the load. Thereafter, if the demand is really too high that even private operators cannot relieve, then the government come and give public operators more buses to enhance the public bus service.
Re-designing (re-drawing) the bus routes would mean re-routing bus routes to cater better to the needs and wants of the people in today's world, because there may be some places that no longer have a demand as significant as in the past, such as schools (due to aging population in the area and there is a smaller proportion of school-going people).
After the bus routes are re-routed, new bus routes can then be created - to compensate the loss of links resulted.
That is for the existing towns. At least this will save resources for service improvements in other expects (eg: new long-distance bus routes that offer direct bus connection).
Whereas for the new towns, it is clear that new bus routes have to be introduced (because there are very little or none), but that is to serve new areas.
Likewise, when the bus routes experience high demand, private operators can be called in to relieve the load from public operators. and if the demand if way too high, the government can come in and give public operators more buses to operate the routes.
You echo my sentiment here. And that's what I am strongly advocating. Re-designing some bus routes for the benefit of many is reqyuired. A small minority will always be inconvenienced, but the name of the game is "ADAPT" to changing environments. LTA is doing little about existing services. -
Originally posted by SBST163:
Buangkok Bus Interchange is confirmed
not sure about the rest
Are you sure? I didn't hear of any such press release. If It is confirmed, it is great. Buangkok MRT is poorly used today because of poor bus connectivity. People along HG Ave 6 take 27 to HG MRT. Even from Buangkok link, Buangkok Green, HG St 51 etc that are closer to Buangkok MRT, people take bus to HG making it over crowded.Once Buangkok Interchange comes, can have new services from there towards Seletar and Upper Serangoon Road.
-
Buangkok Interchange will also relieve the pressure of Sengkang and Hougang interchange as both these are bursting right now. Some services can start from here in future.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Buangkok Interchange will also relieve the pressure of Sengkang and Hougang interchange as both these are bursting right now. Some services can start from here in future.
Sengkang isn't bursting...
Can get svcs like 27 to start there to warrant more efficient and, more importantly, more consistent operations.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Sengkang isn't bursting...
Can get svcs like 27 to start there to warrant more efficient and, more importantly, more consistent operations.
1. Do you have enough parking spots for sv 27 there? Remember it is a service with 04-05 mins frequency?2. What about the missing link between Sengkang, Buangkok and Hougang. Do you realise sv 27 is one of the two services at Buangkok MRT, and only service on upper leg of HG Ave 6 to connect to HG MRT?