Originally posted by carbikebus:Those who always said that Sg Public transport is affordable better think twice in near future..Im not suprised if feeder fare is $1.80-2.00..Salary for the past 10 years increase by 10-20% other things increased by 100%..Thanks MIW
But it is stupid bus operations. If you support inefficient services like 120 and most of the P and super-expensive City Direct survive, then this was going to happen sooner or later. I was shouting on top of the roof when all these illogical additions were being done.
BSEP is a great move with adding buses. SBST/SMRT premium city direct are good as well. Why LTA had to pay so much for running 2 am, 2 PM trips?
Originally posted by sgbuses:New routes could get the axe if there is insufficient patronage. Transperth has practiced this before. Bus lobbyists who got their routes should start worrying now.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:But it is stupid bus operations. If you support inefficient services like 120 and most of the P and super-expensive City Direct survive, then this was going to happen sooner or later. I was shouting on top of the roof when all these illogical additions were being done.
BSEP is a great move with adding buses. SBST/SMRT premium city direct are good as well. Why LTA had to pay so much for running 2 am, 2 PM trips?
personally, I feel that the City Direct bus services is like the LRT train services; they are experiments. I do not know what LRT is experimenting. but for City Direct, I know is to experiment bus contracting model. Well, unlike LRT, City Direct license is last for three years only. Maybe if a CD service is under-utilised, LTA will axe it after the three years.
I think CD is only be effective in areas (eg. Hillview) which currently do not have good MRT connection. In areas (eg. Jurong West) with good MRT connection, CD is redundant.
For instance, as of now, I think only CDs at areas (eg. Hillview) with poor MRT connection are getting additional trips, whereas CDs at areas (eg. Jurong West) with good MRT connection still have two trips only.
Why? Because MRT is cheaper - sometimes faster - than CD. Since have cheaper alternative, people would rather take MRT instead of CD.
Hence, this is what I think will happen:
Why is LTA still not announcing the opening of the pair of bus stops along TPE? What is taking them so long? Today is 9 july 2014 already and the WC is coming to the end soon. I thought they put completion date as 1st quarter 2014? Why can allow delay for so long?
Originally posted by dupdup77:Why is LTA still not announcing the opening of the pair of bus stops along TPE? What is taking them so long? Today is 9 july 2014 already and the WC is coming to the end soon. I thought they put completion date as 1st quarter 2014? Why can allow delay for so long?
maybe the new pair of bus stops is meant for the upcoming new bus service in Punggol, which LTA says it will launch soon? if so, I think the new bus stops will only open when the new bus service is launched.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Why is LTA still not announcing the opening of the pair of bus stops along TPE? What is taking them so long? Today is 9 july 2014 already and the WC is coming to the end soon. I thought they put completion date as 1st quarter 2014? Why can allow delay for so long?
yah DD y har?!
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Yes I agree. I see Sv 43 also come at 12-15 min frequency most times, when I monitor. But I think would be good to convert 2 SD slots to DD given that Punggol West is now getting developed and is one of the only trunk services there.
Also more HDBs coming along Sengkamg Central, huge condo complexes around Buangkok Drive.
will BSEP again unless SBST upgrade svc
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:personally, I feel that the City Direct bus services is like the LRT train services; they are experiments. I do not know what LRT is experimenting. but for City Direct, I know is to experiment bus contracting model. Well, unlike LRT, City Direct license is last for three years only. Maybe if a CD service is under-utilised, LTA will axe it after the three years.
I think CD is only be effective in areas (eg. Hillview) which currently do not have good MRT connection. In areas (eg. Jurong West) with good MRT connection, CD is redundant.
For instance, as of now, I think only CDs at areas (eg. Hillview) with poor MRT connection are getting additional trips, whereas CDs at areas (eg. Jurong West) with good MRT connection still have two trips only.
Why? Because MRT is cheaper - sometimes faster - than CD. Since have cheaper alternative, people would rather take MRT instead of CD.
Hence, this is what I think will happen:
- CDs (eg. 651) in areas with good MRT connection will be axed by the end of the first term (2013-2016).
- CDs (eg. 653) in areas with poor MRT connection will continue beyond 2016, until there's good MRT connection.
- Eventually, CDs will be gone, when every single residential corridor has good MRT connection.
juz for info, CD/PPSS/watever alphabets will be phased out...
This awarding of contract is to test water and for other tests, including reliability, BSRF, loading, signals...
So eventually it will be either a zonal system fare or enhancing the DRF fare wic means, the further u sstay from city centre the more you pay
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:maybe the new pair of bus stops is meant for the upcoming new bus service in Punggol, which LTA says it will launch soon? if so, I think the new bus stops will only open when the new bus service is launched.
Hi mr jurongwestresident, the main objective of the new pair of bus stops along TPE is certainly not meant for the new service. Its objective has already been decided 2 years ago and not only last week when the new bus service is to be launched by Q3 2014. Cheers.
Originally posted by Acx1688:yah DD y har?!
Hi mr Acx1688, still waiting patiently day by day. Cheers.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr Acx1688, still waiting patiently day by day. Cheers.
LTA muz be quik to open the new busstops to cut down complaints on sv27
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:personally, I feel that the City Direct bus services is like the LRT train services; they are experiments. I do not know what LRT is experimenting. but for City Direct, I know is to experiment bus contracting model. Well, unlike LRT, City Direct license is last for three years only. Maybe if a CD service is under-utilised, LTA will axe it after the three years.
I think CD is only be effective in areas (eg. Hillview) which currently do not have good MRT connection. In areas (eg. Jurong West) with good MRT connection, CD is redundant.
For instance, as of now, I think only CDs at areas (eg. Hillview) with poor MRT connection are getting additional trips, whereas CDs at areas (eg. Jurong West) with good MRT connection still have two trips only.
Why? Because MRT is cheaper - sometimes faster - than CD. Since have cheaper alternative, people would rather take MRT instead of CD.
Hence, this is what I think will happen:
- CDs (eg. 651) in areas with good MRT connection will be axed by the end of the first term (2013-2016).
- CDs (eg. 653) in areas with poor MRT connection will continue beyond 2016, until there's good MRT connection.
- Eventually, CDs will be gone, when every single residential corridor has good MRT connection.
Ok that they are experimenting CD. How can they experiment LRT? They can't just pull out the infrastructure there? Feeders would have been more cost-efficient and useful for people than LRTs. That already was a mistake, and LTA has realized it not to invest anymore in LRTs.
Why would they plan so many LRTs before even testing success of one? Same way why so many CD when most of them reach CBD onboard with 10-15 pax, some with 20-25 pax. So much money for these few people!?
Somehow I have to say SBST/SMRT with their better buses, manage to get more people on board. Look at premium services. You can see each DD getting 60-65 pax. Also 513 is getting 55-65 pax each bus. 850E, 951E are already blockbuster services.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Ok that they are experimenting CD. How can they experiment LRT? They can't just pull out the infrastructure there? Feeders would have been more cost-efficient and useful for people than LRTs. That already was a mistake, and LTA has realized it not to invest anymore in LRTs.Why would they plan so many LRTs before even testing success of one? Same way why so many CD when most of them reach CBD onboard with 10-15 pax, some with 20-25 pax. So much money for these few people!?
Somehow I have to say SBST/SMRT with their better buses, manage to get more people on board. Look at premium services. You can see each DD getting 60-65 pax. Also 513 is getting 55-65 pax each bus. 850E, 951E are already blockbuster services.
To say that LRT is less cost-efficient and, worse still, less useful is an atrocious understatement.
Firstly, reliability. On average the chances of an LRT breakdown to a bus is far less. Judging by the SBST system for example. For every breakdown the system has, an average of 50 buses would break down. The advanced computer technology has made the system effectively kept the number of faults and human errors to a minimum. This is something a bus could simply not achieve. Also, the LRT had managed to keep its frequency with outstanding consistency. Even for the Bukit Panjang Line! Compared to the buses who often come late due to arising traffic conditions it is definitely an edge for the automover system.
Secondly, efficiency. Here I will be talking about this in the long run. LRTs are far more efficient than buses because it saves costs in the long run. Firstly, it saves manpower, as the cabs are fully automated. Secondly, it saves time, as these cars can run around without stopping every day, while for buses you need turnover time and change shifts. Due to its automated system it can also have flexible operating hours. The Sengkang LRT extends operating hours on PH while 372 does not. The LRT can carry more people in a single trip. A car of capacity of 105 passengers vs an SD of approx 80 pax (assuming it's SDs because it is highly inefficient to run DDs on feeders and compared to LRTs bendies are no match in cost-efficiency) shows that the LRT system can have a higher capacity than regular buses. Saves manpower, saves operating cost. Despite its higher costs of construction as long as it is built in the right neighbourhood it would be far more efficient than buses in the long run.
Thirdly, convenience. Here I shall be commenting in the perspective of a commuter. I mean, wouldn't you want a sheltered walkway to the station, happily top-up your card (instead of giving tedious coins) and travel on stable cars and reach town centre in a matter of around 10 minutes? Versus a bus which takes longer to come, uncomfortable to squeeze in, shaky, takes long time (traffic lights) and yet have to tap out and in again, which wastes one of the 5 trips you have on your ezlink card (assuming in the position of te majority of commuting crowds which take the train to the city), and thus indirectly wasting your money? For example, Rivervale LRT Station. 119 vs LRT. I challenge you go count the pathetic amount of people boarding 119, despite it taking the most straightforward route available by road to STC. Seriously, the overall commuting environment is much better on the LRT (proper station with proper facilities) than the bus!
How could you say that LTA had not been doing trials properly? When Bukit Panjang LRT opened it became a hit (partially due to withdrawn services), only problem was its constant bugs. But LTA had seen that, and thus made major improvements for the Sengkang and Punggol LRTs, such as changing operator and using higher quality trains. They even made signalling upgrades to BPLRT itself! And what proof to say that LTA had decided not to invest anymore? Remember, LTA had even INVESTED ADDITIONAL CARS to IMPROVE the system. By 2016, 16 trains on the SBST system would be dual-car!
Please do try the LRT for commuting and daily travelling purposes before saying such a statement! As a former Tampines resident I can bravely tell you, life is so much better with the LRT, both for the operator and the commuter!
Originally posted by SMB128B:To say that LRT is less cost-efficient and, worse still, less useful is an atrocious understatement.
Firstly, reliability. On average the chances of an LRT breakdown to a bus is far less. Judging by the SBST system for example. For every breakdown the system has, an average of 50 buses would break down. The advanced computer technology has made the system effectively kept the number of faults and human errors to a minimum. This is something a bus could simply not achieve. Also, the LRT had managed to keep its frequency with outstanding consistency. Even for the Bukit Panjang Line! Compared to the buses who often come late due to arising traffic conditions it is definitely an edge for the automover system.
Secondly, efficiency. Here I will be talking about this in the long run. LRTs are far more efficient than buses because it saves costs in the long run. Firstly, it saves manpower, as the cabs are fully automated. Secondly, it saves time, as these cars can run around without stopping every day, while for buses you need turnover time and change shifts. Due to its automated system it can also have flexible operating hours. The Sengkang LRT extends operating hours on PH while 372 does not. The LRT can carry more people in a single trip. A car of capacity of 105 passengers vs an SD of approx 80 pax (assuming it's SDs because it is highly inefficient to run DDs on feeders and compared to LRTs bendies are no match in cost-efficiency) shows that the LRT system can have a higher capacity than regular buses. Saves manpower, saves operating cost. Despite its higher costs of construction as long as it is built in the right neighbourhood it would be far more efficient than buses in the long run.
Thirdly, convenience. Here I shall be commenting in the perspective of a commuter. I mean, wouldn't you want a sheltered walkway to the station, happily top-up your card (instead of giving tedious coins) and travel on stable cars and reach town centre in a matter of around 10 minutes? Versus a bus which takes longer to come, uncomfortable to squeeze in, shaky, takes long time (traffic lights) and yet have to tap out and in again, which wastes one of the 5 trips you have on your ezlink card (assuming in the position of te majority of commuting crowds which take the train to the city), and thus indirectly wasting your money? For example, Rivervale LRT Station. 119 vs LRT. I challenge you go count the pathetic amount of people boarding 119, despite it taking the most straightforward route available by road to STC. Seriously, the overall commuting environment is much better on the LRT (proper station with proper facilities) than the bus!
How could you say that LTA had not been doing trials properly? When Bukit Panjang LRT opened it became a hit (partially due to withdrawn services), only problem was its constant bugs. But LTA had seen that, and thus made major improvements for the Sengkang and Punggol LRTs, such as changing operator and using higher quality trains. They even made signalling upgrades to BPLRT itself! And what proof to say that LTA had decided not to invest anymore? Remember, LTA had even INVESTED ADDITIONAL CARS to IMPROVE the system. By 2016, 16 trains on the SBST system would be dual-car!
Please do try the LRT for commuting and daily travelling purposes before saying such a statement! As a former Tampines resident I can bravely tell you, life is so much better with the LRT, both for the operator and the commuter!
No doubt, trains can run faster than buses. Without the traffic lights and traffic jams which buses experience, there is greater assurance that they can run on time. However, I do not think we need a LRT for this feature. Instead, we can simply install Bus Rapid Transit infrastructure - such as a sensor which allows buses to beat traffic light - to have such a feature on the buses.
Personally, I do not think a LRT car can carry 100 people inside. If one end of a BPLRT car can carry around 12 people, I think a LRT car (12*6 times the area of that one end) can carry around 72 people. Meanwhile, there are around 36 seats on a Single Deck bus. On the assumption that there can be around 20 people standing inside a bus, a Single deck bus can carry around 56 people. Therefore, it is true that a LRT car has higher capacity than a Single Deck bus.
However, if compare with DD, I think DD's capacity is higher than LRT's. Double Decker buses have around 20 more seats, so it can carry around 76 people. This is around 4 more than a LRT car. Yeah, I know it may not be a big difference. But in monetary terms, a DD is way more economical than a LRT car. Why? Because at least a DD creates more employment opportunities than a LRT car. Well, I am not sure about how much a DD or a LRT car costs (to purchase and maintain), but I think a DD is cheaper. Therefore, although a LRT may be more efficient than a Single Deck bus, it may instead be less efficient and less economical than a Double Decker bus.
Whereas for convenience, I do not understand how LRT is more convenient than bus. Personally, I prefer bus more than LRT, because unlike LRT, I do not have to climb stairs or take lift before I can board a bus. Besides, I do not think it's totally correct to say that LRT is more able than buses in providing shelter during rain because at the very least, water from the LRT roof may drip down as I walk out of it - similar to when I exit from bus. Therefore, in terms of convenience, it may be better to commute on a bus than on a LRT.
It is mainly about money, actually.
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
No doubt, trains can run faster than buses. Without the traffic lights and traffic jams which buses experience, there is greater assurance that they can run on time. However, I do not think we need a LRT for this feature. Instead, we can simply install Bus Rapid Transit infrastructure - such as a sensor which allows buses to beat traffic light - to have such a feature on the buses.
Personally, I do not think a LRT car can carry 100 people inside. If one end of a BPLRT car can carry around 12 people, I think a LRT car (12*6 times the area of that one end) can carry around 72 people. Meanwhile, there are around 36 seats on a Single Deck bus. On the assumption that there can be around 20 people standing inside a bus, a Single deck bus can carry around 56 people. Therefore, it is true that a LRT car has higher capacity than a Single Deck bus.
However, if compare with DD, I think DD's capacity is higher than LRT's. Double Decker buses have around 20 more seats, so it can carry around 76 people. This is around 4 more than a LRT car. Yeah, I know it may not be a big difference. But in monetary terms, a DD is way more economical than a LRT car. Why? Because at least a DD creates more employment opportunities than a LRT car. Well, I am not sure about how much a DD or a LRT car costs (to purchase and maintain), but I think a DD is cheaper. Therefore, although a LRT may be more efficient than a Single Deck bus, it may instead be less efficient and less economical than a Double Decker bus.
Whereas for convenience, I do not understand how LRT is more convenient than bus. Personally, I prefer bus more than LRT, because unlike LRT, I do not have to climb stairs or take lift before I can board a bus. Besides, I do not think it's totally correct to say that LRT is more able than buses in providing shelter during rain because at the very least, water from the LRT roof may drip down as I walk out of it - similar to when I exit from bus. Therefore, in terms of convenience, it may be better to commute on a bus than on a LRT.
It is mainly about money, actually.
According to official data the maximum capacity of the Crystal Mover on the SBST LRT lines is 105 adult passengers.
Why did I say that DDs are inefficient? Simple: the STAIRS. On services like 50 in Sengkang the upper deck is only half-filled when leaving Sengkang, while the lower deck is packed to door. Why? Coz many do not want to go up for only a few stops! So in reality a DD in this situation can only carry an approximate of 90-110 pax, which is honestly not much difference from (or less than) the capacity of LRT trains.
And EVEN if they DO go up, time taken to board all these pax would already have allowed the LRT, which has two much larger doors and movable space area, to travel at least 1-2 stops!
Beat traffic light? What fantasy is this! Do you mean extension of traffic light timings? Anyway a BRT system is simply impossible for SG road infrastructure!
I agree about climbing stairs part - but I definitely do not agree with the rain! In the LRT station shelter is guaranteed as the roof covers more than just the platform and the floor will never get wet (unless the wind blows, which would make waiting at the bus stop worse!). However in a bu stop you have to stand in a confined shelter with the rain splashing on your face and the floor being wet! What's more, during rainy weather even people who is not taking the bus would seek shelter in the stop, causing the stop to be congested! Worsened by the fact that the stops in the neighbourhood are so compact as compared to the stops in the town centres! In LRT this problem won't exist as you wait for the train, which comes fater still, in a paid area, instead of cramming with people who may be just waiting for the rain to be over, or using it as pick-up/drop-off point!
As I've told you before, long run benefits. SO WHAT if it takes just that bit more to maintain the LRT cars! You provide passengers with safer, faster, more reliable and more comfortable rides, and you give yourself a better solution to PT, as well as a much better way to earn revenue! And what's with the employment issue, when most people driving the buses now are the foreigners! In the first place SG don't even need foreigners; they neesed them to fill in the jobs and foster a more consolidated workforce! But now you have automatic systems to replace these foreign workers! It also stuffs a pacifier in the xenophobic minds of the particular group of Singaporeans! If brainwashing them won't work, then why not this! Not only do you resolve the xenophobia in Singapore (in a bad way but oh wells), you even save costs and manpower for your company!
LRT is something that SG should ALWAYS consider as part of their town planning! Sengkang East LRT was a marvellous creation - we do not have so many feeders and Townlinks spamming the interchange and town centre roads anymore!
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
No doubt, trains can run faster than buses. Without the traffic lights and traffic jams which buses experience, there is greater assurance that they can run on time. However, I do not think we need a LRT for this feature. Instead, we can simply install Bus Rapid Transit infrastructure - such as a sensor which allows buses to beat traffic light - to have such a feature on the buses.
Personally, I do not think a LRT car can carry 100 people inside. If one end of a BPLRT car can carry around 12 people, I think a LRT car (12*6 times the area of that one end) can carry around 72 people. Meanwhile, there are around 36 seats on a Single Deck bus. On the assumption that there can be around 20 people standing inside a bus, a Single deck bus can carry around 56 people. Therefore, it is true that a LRT car has higher capacity than a Single Deck bus.
However, if compare with DD, I think DD's capacity is higher than LRT's. Double Decker buses have around 20 more seats, so it can carry around 76 people. This is around 4 more than a LRT car. Yeah, I know it may not be a big difference. But in monetary terms, a DD is way more economical than a LRT car. Why? Because at least a DD creates more employment opportunities than a LRT car. Well, I am not sure about how much a DD or a LRT car costs (to purchase and maintain), but I think a DD is cheaper. Therefore, although a LRT may be more efficient than a Single Deck bus, it may instead be less efficient and less economical than a Double Decker bus.
Whereas for convenience, I do not understand how LRT is more convenient than bus. Personally, I prefer bus more than LRT, because unlike LRT, I do not have to climb stairs or take lift before I can board a bus. Besides, I do not think it's totally correct to say that LRT is more able than buses in providing shelter during rain because at the very least, water from the LRT roof may drip down as I walk out of it - similar to when I exit from bus. Therefore, in terms of convenience, it may be better to commute on a bus than on a LRT.
It is mainly about money, actually.
p.s. for money read my part on fares and costs.
Originally posted by SMB128B:According to official data the maximum capacity of the Crystal Mover on the SBST LRT lines is 105 adult passengers.
Why did I say that DDs are inefficient? Simple: the STAIRS. On services like 50 in Sengkang the upper deck is only half-filled when leaving Sengkang, while the lower deck is packed to door. Why? Coz many do not want to go up for only a few stops! So in reality a DD in this situation can only carry an approximate of 90-110 pax, which is honestly not much difference from (or less than) the capacity of LRT trains.
And EVEN if they DO go up, time taken to board all these pax would already have allowed the LRT, which has two much larger doors and movable space area, to travel at least 1-2 stops!
Beat traffic light? What fantasy is this! Do you mean extension of traffic light timings? Anyway a BRT system is simply impossible for SG road infrastructure!
I agree about climbing stairs part - but I definitely do not agree with the rain! In the LRT station shelter is guaranteed as the roof covers more than just the platform and the floor will never get wet (unless the wind blows, which would make waiting at the bus stop worse!). However in a bu stop you have to stand in a confined shelter with the rain splashing on your face and the floor being wet! What's more, during rainy weather even people who is not taking the bus would seek shelter in the stop, causing the stop to be congested! Worsened by the fact that the stops in the neighbourhood are so compact as compared to the stops in the town centres! In LRT this problem won't exist as you wait for the train, which comes fater still, in a paid area, instead of cramming with people who may be just waiting for the rain to be over, or using it as pick-up/drop-off point!
As I've told you before, long run benefits. SO WHAT if it takes just that bit more to maintain the LRT cars! You provide passengers with safer, faster, more reliable and more comfortable rides, and you give yourself a better solution to PT, as well as a much better way to earn revenue! And what's with the employment issue, when most people driving the buses now are the foreigners! In the first place SG don't even need foreigners; they neesed them to fill in the jobs and foster a more consolidated workforce! But now you have automatic systems to replace these foreign workers! It also stuffs a pacifier in the xenophobic minds of the particular group of Singaporeans! If brainwashing them won't work, then why not this! Not only do you resolve the xenophobia in Singapore (in a bad way but oh wells), you even save costs and manpower for your company!
LRT is something that SG should ALWAYS consider as part of their town planning! Sengkang East LRT was a marvellous creation - we do not have so many feeders and Townlinks spamming the interchange and town centre roads anymore!
The main difference is LRT is static, bus routes can be dynamic. Hence, based on new development models, you can easily adapt your bus route. Capacity wise, both are the same, so I do not see high an advantage/disadvantage.
From cost operation perspective, bus operations are cheaper compared to LRTs. For feeders, buses are more efficient. For long distance, MRTs are more efficient. That is the reality, whether you like it or not.
LRT is being modeled as subset of MRT. When timings for MRTs are extended at nights for eve of public holidays, take note that LRTs are also extended instead of bus services for those towns having LRTs. In most cases, LRTs bring one to within walking distance of a person's house. With LRT, one does not have to worry about last bus timing anymore when taking the last mrt home. Cheers to LRT.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:The main difference is LRT is static, bus routes can be dynamic. Hence, based on new development models, you can easily adapt your bus route. Capacity wise, both are the same, so I do not see high an advantage/disadvantage.
From cost operation perspective, bus operations are cheaper compared to LRTs. For feeders, buses are more efficient. For long distance, MRTs are more efficient. That is the reality, whether you like it or not.
Hehe reality uh...
You like reality? I give you reality! Now 80% of Rivervale residents have convenient access to the LRT. LRT is so popular it gets packed nearly throughout the day. As I;ve said before, if built in the right place, the LRT can equally serve majority of the neighbourhood, even if the route is static. If really cannot then introduce routes like 371 and 920 lor, but by having this system you save 2-3 bus routes alone! Less congestion! Better for commuters too. Capacity wise, LRT systems has a higher designed capacity of approx 8000 pax per day. 119 and 372 couldn't even reach half of that! This is also due to the frequency and consistency of services.
You have YET to prove how feeders are more efficient than LRT, so that "reality" falls.
And you have also YET to prove to me how bus operations are cheaper.
Originally posted by SMB128B:Hehe reality uh...
You like reality? I give you reality! Now 80% of Rivervale residents have convenient access to the LRT. LRT is so popular it gets packed nearly throughout the day. As I;ve said before, if built in the right place, the LRT can equally serve majority of the neighbourhood, even if the route is static. If really cannot then introduce routes like 371 and 920 lor, but by having this system you save 2-3 bus routes alone! Less congestion! Better for commuters too. Capacity wise, LRT systems has a higher designed capacity of approx 8000 pax per day. 119 and 372 couldn't even reach half of that! This is also due to the frequency and consistency of services.
You have YET to prove how feeders are more efficient than LRT, so that "reality" falls.
And you have also YET to prove to me how bus operations are cheaper.
you can't compare because if there was no LRT, you would have a better feeder network with high frequency how you have in Boon Lay or Tampines area. And you are right, LRT is super crowded as well, so I dont see how it is better. It is a big white elephant.
Regarding 372, do you even know that half of Sengkang East is still under development where 372 plies. How can you even compare?
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
you can't compare because if there was no LRT, you would have a better feeder network with high frequency how you have in Boon Lay or Tampines area. And you are right, LRT is super crowded as well, so I dont see how it is better. It is a big white elephant.Regarding 372, do you even know that half of Sengkang East is still under development where 372 plies. How can you even compare?
Hi mr BusAnalyser, did I read wrongly??? Half of sengkang east is still under development where 372 plies??? Should be sengkang west right? Sengkang east is more or less developed already. Anchorvale area are all under sengkang west, not east. Cheers.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
you can't compare because if there was no LRT, you would have a better feeder network with high frequency how you have in Boon Lay or Tampines area. And you are right, LRT is super crowded as well, so I dont see how it is better. It is a big white elephant.Regarding 372, do you even know that half of Sengkang East is still under development where 372 plies. How can you even compare?
I know! Thats why I put 119 first. Explain that.
And I use 372 becoz of its low freq as compared to LRT.
White elephant?! Are you mad?! Oh yeah man, a white elephant could get its trains severely crowded, day and night! So crowded LTA even added trains! How is it even a white elephant, may I ask?! bias?! And at least you can pack 105 pax, vs a small 70-80 plus pax on an SD, or a DD which would take forever to reach optimum capacity!
In Tampines crowding in the interchange isnso severe it delays many of the buses! How is that a better feeder network?! And you cant compare Tampines either coz the town is old and there wasnt even a thought on building an LRT! Thats why now it cant have one!
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:The main difference is LRT is static, bus routes can be dynamic. Hence, based on new development models, you can easily adapt your bus route. Capacity wise, both are the same, so I do not see high an advantage/disadvantage.
From cost operation perspective, bus operations are cheaper compared to LRTs. For feeders, buses are more efficient. For long distance, MRTs are more efficient. That is the reality, whether you like it or not.
Originally posted by dupdup77:LRT is being modeled as subset of MRT. When timings for MRTs are extended at nights for eve of public holidays, take note that LRTs are also extended instead of bus services for those towns having LRTs. With LRT, one does not have to worry about last bus timing anymore when taking the last mrt home. Cheers to LRT.
This is not true. Bus services serving residential areas operate for extended hours when MRT runs for extended hours.