LTA's Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) (Part 2)
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
Here we go again. Ppl are still having the mind sets that all bus yservices (new or old) must be crowded during all operating hours. As long as some buses/services are not crowded , it is a waste of resources/money n must be withdrawn or amended. Some parts of the new bus services routes are purposely drawn to duplicate current services route to help to spread out the paxes.
As if sbstransit or smrt wan to operate the bus services during off peak hours? If they can they will just operate all bus services during peak hours to maximise their earning n minimise their running costs.
No. But bus services should have a minimum loading threshold, else those resources can be better deployed. Common sense, gentlemen!
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
No. But bus services should have a minimum loading threshold, else those resources can be better deployed. Common sense, gentlemen!
If routes needed to have some decent loading to justify its continued operations:
11, 42, 84, 92 (Mt Sinai stretch), 191 and 194 should go outright.
35, 91, 92, 94, 115, 178, 200, 285, 400, 402, 825, 852, 882, 975 (LCK stretch) and most JIS services should be peak hour only.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
If routes needed to have some decent loading to justify its continued operations:
11, 42, 84, 92 (Mt Sinai stretch), 191 and 194 should go outright.
35, 91, 92, 94, 115, 178, 200, 285, 400, 402, 825, 852, 882, 975 (LCK stretch) and most JIS services should be peak hour only.
Well.. You don't know the loading of some of these routes then.
42 needs a BSEP add - frequency too poor and only service in the area
11 / 84 - just one bus. Again providing connectivity in an area that has no other bus alternative. Still want to withdraw? Again only one bus. Is it too much resources used??
92 - def has good loading in mt.sinai / Ghim moh stretch.
194 - has high loading in pperating hours for Jurong bird park
191/ JIS - have pathetically low frequency off peak anyway unlike 120.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
If routes needed to have some decent loading to justify its continued operations:
11, 42, 84, 92 (Mt Sinai stretch), 191 and 194 should go outright.
35, 91, 92, 94, 115, 178, 200, 285, 400, 402, 825, 852, 882, 975 (LCK stretch) and most JIS services should be peak hour only.
37 used to be peak hour until 2007
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Well.. You don't know the loading of some of these routes then.
42 needs a BSEP add - frequency too poor and only service in the area
11 / 84 - just one bus. Again providing connectivity in an area that has no other bus alternative. Still want to withdraw? Again only one bus. Is it too much resources used??
92 - def has good loading in mt.sinai / Ghim moh stretch.
194 - has high loading in pperating hours for Jurong bird park
191/ JIS - have pathetically low frequency off peak anyway unlike 120.
Hi mr BusAnalyser, I spotted 2 buses for sbs 84 lately. Not sure the 1 bus you mentioned is correct. Cheers
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Well.. You don't know the loading of some of these routes then.
42 needs a BSEP add - frequency too poor and only service in the area
11 / 84 - just one bus. Again providing connectivity in an area that has no other bus alternative. Still want to withdraw? Again only one bus. Is it too much resources used??
92 - def has good loading in mt.sinai / Ghim moh stretch.
194 - has high loading in pperating hours for Jurong bird park
191/ JIS - have pathetically low frequency off peak anyway unlike 120.
Which illustrates my point.
Loading itself cannot be the only factor to justify the existence of routes. Connectivity needs to be considered as well. Otherwise the above-mentioned routes can be argued to be a waste of resources as they run largely empty during off-peak hours and operators face a greater challenge in operating these routes as compared to other better-patronised routes.
I am not allowed make specific comments on individual routes, but I know the loadings of the entire ops period well enough to make this general comment.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr BusAnalyser, I spotted 2 buses for sbs 84 lately. Not sure the 1 bus you mentioned is correct. Cheers
Unless it is newly added bus, it is correct.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Which illustrates my point.
Loading itself cannot be the only factor to justify the existence of routes. Connectivity needs to be considered as well. Otherwise the above-mentioned routes can be argued to be a waste of resources as they run largely empty during off-peak hours and the operators face a greater challenge in operating these routes.
I am not allowed make specific comments on individual routes, but I know the loadings of the entire ops period well enough to make this general comment.
And it has to be a case to case basis... Totally agreed.. Hence Sv 120 is a different case unlike the ones you listed above.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Unless it is newly added bus, it is correct.
Frankly, I still prefer sbs 82 originating from serangoon interchange to loop at punggol road end which was the previous arrangement. This will be much better than the current sbs 82 from Punggol to loop at serangoon central and another separate service sbs 84 to Punggol rd end. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Frankly, I still prefer sbs 82 originating from serangoon interchange to loop at punggol road end which was the previous arrangement. This will be much better than the current sbs 82 from Punggol to loop at serangoon central and another separate service sbs 84 to Punggol rd end. Cheers.
Frankly I would prefer 82 runs from Shenton way to Punggol interchange, merged with 107. Since loading to Punggol end is sparse, Sv 84 is okay. If one bus is added, will be good.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
If routes needed to have some decent loading to justify its continued operations:
11, 42, 84, 92 (Mt Sinai stretch), 191 and 194 should go outright.
35, 91, 92, 94, 115, 178, 200, 285, 400, 402, 825, 852, 882, 975 (LCK stretch) and most JIS services should be peak hour only.
Mostly This should be the case! (except 11)
84, 882 should be weekend.
35, 42, 194 remain.
The other deserve peak!
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Frankly I would prefer 82 runs from Shenton way to Punggol interchange, merged with 107. Since loading to Punggol end is sparse, Sv 84 is okay. If one bus is added, will be good.
Hi mr BusAnalyser, have they not made the change previously, Punggol interchange will be free of some spaces for other new semi-express services to go to places like orchard and marina square. Now currently sbs 82 and sbs 84 take up those slots. Moreover, the route of sbs 82 is not very unique. Even if it loops at Punggol road end, it still serves the same catchment of passengers. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
You can't say that...
Svcs like 12, 27, 240, 372 do have load during off-peak.
List goes on.
120? Nah.
What you have to understand is that some svcs have such a low ridership during off-peak it does not justify the amount of buses deployed or even warrant the operating times. For example, every weekends and every night after 8 svc 5 gets full SD fleet due to lower ridership.
Go look at HK. They do reduce svcs to run only on weekday peak to cut down costs and save taxpayers money. When loading gets too low and the svc has little exclusive area to run (ie heavy duplication along most of its route). You have to understand, resources are not infinite. In fact new svcs in HK are introduced through regrouping and reshuffling its current bus svcs. As such some svcs get reduced or even withdrawn to introduce a new svc, or add freq to another high-demand svc.
I give you one example. Svc 798, TKL/TKO <-> Shatin. Express svc. During Peak hour gets so crowded with so many people going to Shatin in the morning (and vice versa) even an average freq of 7 mins with 12m DDs could barely cope with the load. Fleet came from withdrawn 796B, which very rarely gets crowded, and downgraded 797M, which is practically empty during off-peak.
You see how resources are used here? Same should be applied to 120. In fact had it not been the quite-acceptable load during peak I would have thought it to be withdrawn. Now that there are some load after all (seen quite a number alighting from 120 during AM peak), maybe it should be dealt with another way. Either way it will be able to benefit more people out there.
what smb128b says is true, fellow bus fans can go to the hk bus discussion thread to read abt cancellation of alloted buses for shatin area... Eg 51 cut to 1 bus(SD), freq is 60mins due to poor demand, hwever there will be another bus on standby in case breakdown to maintain quality of service...
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr BusAnalyser, have they not made the change previously, Punggol interchange will be free of some spaces for other new semi-express services to go to places like orchard and marina square. Now currently sbs 82 and sbs 84 take up those slots. Moreover, the route of sbs 82 is not very unique. Even if it loops at Punggol road end, it still serves the same catchment of passengers. Cheers.
Cutting of sv82 to PNG due to space constraint at SGN,84 is wasting buses but no choice, there r users thru out the day, no gd to cvt weekend svc...
PNG int ve plenty of space, just redraw parking berths, can squeeze 3mre buses
84/82 done thing wun change unless 82 merge 107...wil save slots as mre can park at shenton way ve ample places...
-
Originally posted by Acx1688:
Cutting of sv82 to PNG due to space constraint at SGN,84 is wasting buses but no choice, there r users thru out the day, no gd to cvt weekend svc...
PNG int ve plenty of space, just redraw parking berths, can squeeze 3mre buses
84/82 done thing wun change unless 82 merge 107...wil save slots as mre can park at shenton way ve ample places...
Hi mr Acx1688, i understand the sbs 82/84 issues and the reasons behind it long time ago. However, i still wish for the good olden days that sbs 82 can just loop at punggol road end. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr BusAnalyser, have they not made the change previously, Punggol interchange will be free of some spaces for other new semi-express services to go to places like orchard and marina square. Now currently sbs 82 and sbs 84 take up those slots. Moreover, the route of sbs 82 is not very unique. Even if it loops at Punggol road end, it still serves the same catchment of passengers. Cheers.
hi Mr dupdup77; do u think punggol/sengkang area needs an express bus service to connect the western part-eg Yew Tee/Jurong East/Boon Lay? when i drive from Punggolvia TPE to kranji/yew tee area then onto KJE, i find it so direct and convenient. -
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr Acx1688, i understand the sbs 82/84 issues and the reasons behind it long time ago. However, i still wish for the good olden days that sbs 82 can just loop at punggol road end. Cheers.
Loop? Punggol rd end used to ve ter for 82,83
-
Originally posted by Acx1688:
Loop? Punggol rd end used to ve ter for 82,83
Hi mr Acx1688, I mean in the recent past around yr 2009. Not as in many many years ago. Cheers
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Frankly I would prefer 82 runs from Shenton way to Punggol interchange, merged with 107. Since loading to Punggol end is sparse, Sv 84 is okay. If one bus is added, will be good.
i agree too. both 82 & 107 should merge. but for the 107M version, do u think the new merge route should terminate at Shenton Way and not loop at Marina? -
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Which illustrates my point.
Loading itself cannot be the only factor to justify the existence of routes. Connectivity needs to be considered as well. Otherwise the above-mentioned routes can be argued to be a waste of resources as they run largely empty during off-peak hours and operators face a greater challenge in operating these routes as compared to other better-patronised routes.
I am not allowed make specific comments on individual routes, but I know the loadings of the entire ops period well enough to make this general comment.
Having the buses returning to depot is also such a waste of fuel and time. Just like the services mentioned by some parties.
Might as well just park at interchanges and put fuel pumps next to the commuter?
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
hi Mr dupdup77; do u think punggol/sengkang area needs an express bus service to connect the western part-eg Yew Tee/Jurong East/Boon Lay? when i drive from Punggolvia TPE to kranji/yew tee area then onto KJE, i find it so direct and convenient.Hi mr SBS3688Y, I think no need at the present. Lack of sufficient loading and the distance travelled will be too long. Currently people will transfer to circle line at serangoon to connect to buona vista to transfer to west side of Singapore (jurong east, Boon Lay) which is considered the fastest as of this moment. As for areas like choa Chu Kang, bukit batok, we take sbs 161 to woodlands and transfer to woodlands mrt. Travel time is slightly more than a direct bus service but it is still manageable. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
i agree too. both 82 & 107 should merge. but for the 107M version, do u think the new merge route should terminate at Shenton Way and not loop at Marina?OT abt M services esp M services to city eg 70M,107M,162M to better utilise this and create greater connectivity, shld extend to MBS looping at MBFC before return trip to their respective terminals, any1 any comments?! can build up on tis
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Having the buses returning to depot is also such a waste of fuel and time. Just like the services mentioned by some parties.
Might as well just park at interchanges and put fuel pumps next to the commuter?
Reminds me of Jurong Bus Park and the old Jurong Interchange along Jurong Port Road!
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr SBS3688Y, I think no need at the present. Lack of sufficient loading and the distance travelled will be too long. Currently people will transfer to circle line at serangoon to connect to buona vista to transfer to west side of Singapore (jurong east, Boon Lay) which is considered the fastest as of this moment. As for areas like choa Chu Kang, bukit batok, we take sbs 161 to woodlands and transfer to woodlands mrt. Travel time is slightly more than a direct bus service but it is still manageable. Cheers.
Nah.
Maybe a direct svc from northeast to west will be good.
Preferable JE.
I mean, haven't you noticed the growth of JE now? MRT is simply insufficient. Two transfers! So many stops! And the Circle Line is notorious for crawling speeds (understandable due to numerous turns).
If the CBD can be served with express svcs and direct MRT connections, why can't JE? It's already becoming the second CBD of the entire nation. With the current transport connection it has it puts shame and unfairness to many parts of Singapore!
Hope the CRL will resolve this issue, and hope its express services will be confirmed and operational during weekends as well along with peak hours. Otherwise an express svc like this should be introduced as a stop-gap.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Nah.
Maybe a direct svc from northeast to west will be good.
Preferable JE.
I mean, haven't you noticed the growth of JE now? MRT is simply insufficient. Two transfers! So many stops! And the Circle Line is notorious for crawling speeds (understandable due to numerous turns).
If the CBD can be served with express svcs and direct MRT connections, why can't JE? It's already becoming the second CBD of the entire nation. With the current transport connection it has it puts shame and unfairness to many parts of Singapore!
Hope the CRL will resolve this issue, and hope its express services will be confirmed and operational during weekends as well along with peak hours. Otherwise an express svc like this should be introduced as a stop-gap.
How about a semi-express service from Sengkang Int to Jurong East Int via KPE, Bartley Road East, Braddell Road, Lornie Road, PIE, Toh Guan Road and Boon Lay Way? Another option is to have this service go by Macpherson Road to the PIE, but this side of the PIE has high traffic... Thus, I would rather suggest to have it go by Braddell Road, which has low traffic except for the junction with the CTE...