Loading level on buses
-
Originally posted by sbst191:
53? yes. 45? Nope i dont think so. 45 comes at an interval of 15-20mins during PM peak. No 45B.
This was before BSEP. Now 45 comes at 10 minute interval that too DDs are timed for PM peak towards Bedok.
-
Originally posted by SMB145B:
882 (boarding at SBW Int at 23:13/11:13pm)
Int - 1 pax
Opp Sembawang stn - 6 pax
Bef Sembawang CC - 4 pax
Sembawang Vista - 1
Sembawang Drive - 1
Sembawang Way - 6
Canberra Rd - 6
Wellington Circle - 6
Montreal Dr - 6
Montreal Lk - 6
Sembawang Rd - 4
At tha time. Most services are like that. Need to observe in peak hours.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
At tha time. Most services are like that. Need to observe in peak hours.
maybe loading for 882 and 169 coming up
-
116 @ 17.23 at HG int
HG interchange -- 15
Hg central -- 15
HG ave 4 -- 16, 15, 14
HG Ave 9 -- 14, 11, 11
Serangoon North Ave 4 -- 17, 13
AMK ave 3 -- 12
YCK rd -- 16, 18, 19 (peak loading in direction towards Serangoon), 18, 18
YCK link -- 16
Serangoon Central -- 16, 20 (2, -14, +18)
Upper Serangoon rd -- 22
Boundary rd -- 23
YCK link -- 28 (peak loading towards HG)
YCK rd -- 26, 25, 26, 26
AMK Ave 3 -- 23
Serangoon north ave 4 -- 14, 12
Hougang ave 9 -- 14, 15, 17
Hg ave 4 -- 18, 17, 15
Hg central -- 14
** one more example of not so impressive loading on 116, especially between sgn north ave 4 and Hougang because of duplicate redundant route. Total journey time > 1 hr.
** recommending once more! route should be modified to ply SGN north ave 1 before going to north ave 4. 2nd change: after HG 1, go via st 91 to HG ave 4 to provide new connection to MRT.
-
882 need an extra crossover(not mealbreaks) during peaks and during Weekends and Holidays extra TQ duty is sufficient.Problem with 882 is not loadings but timing frequencies
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
882 need an extra crossover(not mealbreaks) during peaks and during Weekends and Holidays extra TQ duty is sufficient.Problem with 882 is not loadings but timing frequencies
there is a crossover from 859 doing 882
the two buses doing is 1340Y and 1341U.
303L sometimes does 882 (random crossover?)
another O405 also does 882
-
Sv 161 @ 7,49 from HG interchange B9TL
HG Interchange -- 09
HG ave 10 -- 22
HG ave 6 -- 26
HG ave 8 -- 36, 42, 51
HG ave 4 -- 50, 55
Buangkok Green -- 54, 58
Sengkang East -- 60, 62, 78, 81
Compassalve -- 80 (-22, 59 on board, +21), 79
Punggol Road -- 77 (-15, 64 on board, +13) -- alighted here...
so 161 went on TPE with good 77 pax.. Fully seated.. Week day loading still very good inspite of BSEP.. Before the bus upgrades and more DDs, must have been 100+ pax fir sure.
-
291 loadings for West Loop very heavy (Scanias almost packed to the brim), compared to East Loop (almost fully seated)... Very funny that today, 291 only has 2 DDs (SBS3100B and SBS3735U), the rest are all Scanias (BNDEP/CGBP spamming Scanias on 291 today!)...
Fleet today is: SBS8547M > SBS3100B > SBS8321Y > SBS3735U > SBS8266Z > SBS8519U > SBS8548K > SBS8884P > SBS8603J > SBS8671L > SBS8217R. Wonder where in the world the VOs went... -
Strange eh,Usually Saturdays got at least 5 DDs running while Sundays only 3 the most.
-
Sv 84 left Punggol interchange with 17 pax on board Sat PM around 17.30
-
Sv 190 off peak load is not bad. Especially towards CCK you can already start seeing buses getting packed up from 3pm. Also, there is considerable loading between CCK and BPJ towns bi-directional for this service.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Sv 190 off peak load is not bad. Especially towards CCK you can already start seeing buses getting packed up from 3pm. Also, there is considerable loading between CCK and BPJ towns bi-directional for this service.
Actually i dont mind the load of 190, what i dont get is that during off peak hour still got bus bunching up, last week i saw 4 buses of 190 bunched up on a Sunday and the expressway including Orchard Road wasnt even congested plus out of 4 buses, 3 of the buses are fully seated with some empty seat. Only 1 bus have high loading.
-
Originally posted by TIB 585L:
Actually i dont mind the load of 190, what i dont get is that during off peak hour still got bus bunching up, last week i saw 4 buses of 190 bunched up on a Sunday and the expressway including Orchard Road wasnt even congested plus out of 4 buses, 3 of the buses are fully seated with some empty seat. Only 1 bus have high loading.
Yes if 4 buses bunch up, definitely the last 2 would have empty loads. Even off peak, Sv 190 frequency is quite high. If there is even 5 minutes caught up in a traffic jam, can get the first bus to get delayed with two buses tailing it. Happens with Sv 27 also all the time because of high frequency. Hence 190 need DDs off peak too with 7-8 minutes frequency in off-peak. It will manage load + reduce bunching issues.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Yes if 4 buses bunch up, definitely the last 2 would have empty loads. Even off peak, Sv 190 frequency is quite high. If there is even 5 minutes caught up in a traffic jam, can get the first bus to get delayed with two buses tailing it. Happens with Sv 27 also all the time because of high frequency. Hence 190 need DDs off peak too with 7-8 minutes frequency in off-peak. It will manage load + reduce bunching issues.
Off peak have to reduce the bus coz i dont see the point having bus bunching during these time, if the first bus is very crowded then can understand bus bunching. 190 case even off peak first bus not crowded like to the door but still 2nd,3rd,4th bus can bunch up.
Its either too much bus deployed on the wrong time or SL just want a longer rest at the terminal thus play around with schedule
27 off peak also loading is high so i can understand the bus bunching
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Strange eh,Usually Saturdays got at least 5 DDs running while Sundays only 3 the most.
Yeh, don't why the he** got only 2 DDs yesterday...
-
Took 113 at 8.45pm just now from kovan station and a citaro came.
DD loading seen, 5 mins of alighting and boarding at every stop after kovan station. I could deduce that there were at least 70+ pax squeezing on a citaro as there was no leg room or even arm space for me. Pax were leaning against each other and several passengers struggled to alight at their destinations. 20 - 25pax got off along hougang ave 1.
I feel that 113 should have the same fleet on sundays too, not cut fleet. The BC kept on squeezing people in despite being full to the brim already. I managed to alight at lorong ah soo opp blk 115 with 45+pax at 9.05pm with 10+ pax left on board after alighting.
Bus arrived at Kovan Station with 14 pax , 40 - 50 pax boarded, 10 alighted.
Hougang St 21 FC, 70 pax (16 boarded)
Blk 210/211, 75+ pax. (5-8 pax squeezed on)
Opp Blk 232, 76+ pax (1 pax alighted, 1 pax got on)
Yuying Sec School, 66pax (10-12pax alighted)
Blk 105 Mkt/FC, 52+ pax (16 pax alighted, 2pax boarded)
Lorong Ah Soo Opp blk 115, (45pax alighted, 2 pax boarded)
After Opp Blk 115, left with 10+ pax
-
sv 107 @ 7,55 from HG Interchange VO3x
HG Interchange -- 06
HG Ave 10 -- 12, 14
HG Ave 2 -- 20
Upper Serangoon Rd -- 37, 36, 40 (Kovan MRT), 42, 44, 44, 41 (SGN MRT), 55, 54, 54, 54, 56, 56, 58 (PTP MRT, -16, 40, +18), 60
Bendemeer Rd -- 63
Geylang Bahru -- 74
Kallang Bahru -- 79 (peak loading), 62, 57
Lavendar St -- 55, 56
Kallang Road -- 50 (Lavendar MRT, -19, 37, +13), 54
Jalan Sultan -- 57
Beach Rd -- 59, 54, 50 (alighted here - opp Raffles Hotel)
** Overall pretty poor loading for DD except for Geylang / Kallang Bahru areas. The bus only started picking up load at Potong Pasir
** Observed there were significant number of long distance travellers that did not alight between Kovan and Potong Pasir. This also shows many do prefer 107 to taking NEL as it is quite fast, and less traffic on that road.
** Once again proves merger with 82 will help people along Punggol Road get to Potong Pasir, Lavendar with a direct connection and no changes, yet travel time under 45 mins.
-
Sv 56 from Raffles Hotel @ 18.24 VO3x
Raffles Hotel -- 32
Middle Road -- 35, 47, 51
Selgie Rd -- 54
Little India MRT -- 64 (-16, 38, +26)
Kampong Java Rd -- 67, 70 (peak loading)
Thomson Rd -- 68, 65 (Novena MRT), 64, 67, 67
Trellis Tower -- 69 (-10, 57, +12)
Lor Toa Payoh 2 -- 65
Toa Payoh Central -- 58
Lor 4 Toa Payoh -- 55
Lor 6 Toa Payoh -- 49
Bradell Road -- 44
Bishan Rd -- 44
Bishan St 11 -- 48, 44
Bishan St 13 -- 33 (-20, 24, +9), 29 (-8, 25, +4)
** dd just about touched 70 pax loading which is criteria for deploying dd on a service.
** this must be a profitable route as many pax board and alight on stops. Observed this even within Toa Payoh and Bishan towns good number of pax boarding and alighting.
** trying to understand how the DDs are spaced because they are not consecutive... Every 4th bus is a DD contrary to what I would think that at least every alternate bus would be a DD for peak for the 3 DDs on this service rather than so much spacing.
-
Originally posted by sbst272:
New Fares For City Direct Service 651, From 6 April 2014
http://www.comfortdelgrobus.com.sg/pdf/651FareAdjustment.pdf
New Fares For City Direct Service 653, From 6 April 2014
http://www.comfortdelgrobus.com.sg/pdf/653FareAdjustment.pdf
I guess this is because the demand for these City Direct services are low, hence to remain profitable/reduce losses, the operator has to increase the fares.
Personally, I have tried out City Direct 651 before.That time I purposely went to Marina Bay area just to ride this bus service home. The bus was quite empty - even after it goes onto the expressway - with only a handful of seats taken. Quite clearly, despite the great awareness of this service, the demand for it is quite low.
Secondly, I noticed something rather disturbing about City Direct 651 when I went to try out the service: the bus driver did not follow the route prescribed by LTA!
From the AYE, the bus was supposed to exit at Pioneer Road North, then head north to Boon Lay Way and turn to Jurong West Street 61. Instead, the driver exited at Jalan Boon Lay and the bus was stucked in a traffic jam for a while, before it finally turned to Boon Lay Way (Jurong Point) and headed straight to Jurong West Street 61. 
In short, the demand for City Direct service 651 is low and the service standard is rather bad (because the driver did not follow prescribed route along the express sector). This may be the reason why only a handful of people want to take City Direct service 651, which leads to the operator having to raise the bus fare.
The fare increase will only further reduce the number of people taking City Direct service 651, which will eventually lead to the withdrawal of this service.
Possible solutions to ensure the sustainability of City Direct service 651 (without having to increase bus fare):
- use a smaller bus - with smaller capacity - to reduce costs.
I am sure by now (after 7 full months) the operator is able to deduce the average number of people using City Direct service 651 and decide if it would be more sustainable to use a smaller capacity bus. - extend the route to serve more areas in the Central Business District. Instead of turning south towards Gardens By the Bay, the service could turn north into Chinatown area or east into esplanade area. Clearly, this would increase the demand for City Direct service 651.
- use a smaller bus - with smaller capacity - to reduce costs.
-
911/911E loading seems to be better now.
From what I've seen for 951E loading from st82 alone, the seats are mostly occupied(spotted 3115T/3061P/3075A). Can introduce DD already
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
I guess this is because the demand for these City Direct services are low, hence to remain profitable/reduce losses, the operator has to increase the fares.
Personally, I have tried out City Direct 651 before.That time I purposely went to Marina Bay area just to ride this bus service home. The bus was quite empty - even after it goes onto the expressway - with only a handful of seats taken. Quite clearly, despite the great awareness of this service, the demand for it is quite low.
Secondly, I noticed something rather disturbing about City Direct 651 when I went to try out the service: the bus driver did not follow the route prescribed by LTA!
From the AYE, the bus was supposed to exit at
Pioneer Road North, then head north to Boon Lay Way and turn to
Jurong West Street 61. Instead, the driver exited at Jalan Boon Lay
and the bus was stucked in a traffic jam for a while, before it
finally turned to Boon Lay Way (Jurong Point) and headed straight
to Jurong West Street 61. In short, the demand for City Direct service 651 is low and the service standard is rather bad (because the driver did not follow prescribed route along the express sector). This may be the reason why only a handful of people want to take City Direct service 651, which leads to the operator having to raise the bus fare.
The fare increase will only further reduce the number of people taking City Direct service 651, which will eventually lead to the withdrawal of this service.
Possible solutions to ensure the sustainability of City Direct service 651 (without having to increase bus fare):
- use a smaller bus - with smaller capacity - to reduce
costs. I am sure by now (after 7 full
months) the operator is able to deduce the average number of people
using City Direct service 651 and decide if it would be more
sustainable to use a smaller capacity bus.
- extend the route to serve more areas in the Central Business
District. Instead of turning south towards Gardens
By the Bay, the service could turn north into Chinatown area or
east into esplanade area. Clearly, this would increase the demand
for City Direct service 651.
So will opening up existing public bus routes to private bus operators in 2016 be good? I doubt so, when they (private bus companies) can't even manage a peak hour service well.
- use a smaller bus - with smaller capacity - to reduce
costs.
-
Originally posted by Pervertedboy:
I guess this is because the demand for these City Direct services are low, hence to remain profitable/reduce losses, the operator has to increase the fares.
Personally, I have tried out City Direct 651 before.That time I purposely went to Marina Bay area just to ride this bus service home. The bus was quite empty - even after it goes onto the expressway - with only a handful of seats taken. Quite clearly, despite the great awareness of this service, the demand for it is quite low.
Secondly, I noticed something rather disturbing about City Direct 651 when I went to try out the service: the bus driver did not follow the route prescribed by LTA!
From the AYE, the bus was supposed to exit at
Pioneer Road North, then head north to Boon Lay Way and turn to
Jurong West Street 61. Instead, the driver exited at Jalan Boon Lay
and the bus was stucked in a traffic jam for a while, before it
finally turned to Boon Lay Way (Jurong Point) and headed straight
to Jurong West Street 61. In short, the demand for City Direct service 651 is low and the service standard is rather bad (because the driver did not follow prescribed route along the express sector). This may be the reason why only a handful of people want to take City Direct service 651, which leads to the operator having to raise the bus fare.
The fare increase will only further reduce the number of people taking City Direct service 651, which will eventually lead to the withdrawal of this service.
Possible solutions to ensure the sustainability of City Direct service 651 (without having to increase bus fare):
- use a smaller bus - with smaller capacity - to reduce
costs. I am sure by now (after 7 full
months) the operator is able to deduce the average number of people
using City Direct service 651 and decide if it would be more
sustainable to use a smaller capacity bus.
- extend the route to serve more areas in the Central Business
District. Instead of turning south towards Gardens
By the Bay, the service could turn north into Chinatown area or
east into esplanade area. Clearly, this would increase the demand
for City Direct service 651.
in the first place, get your facts right. the fare increase is due to the overall increase in transport fare from 6th APRIL... not due to CDG happy happy go increase the price of these Citydirect service.. other city direct should have also increase their fares, but whether they do any press release, we do not know...
and for evening peak service, the demand is usually lesser as knock time are different and ppl might be going elsewhere for dinner/shopping etc..... u can see from the facts that SBST does not even operate their premium service in evening peak.... even sv531/850E/951E also have less trips in evening peak.... just dun think so much....
- use a smaller bus - with smaller capacity - to reduce
costs.
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:
So will opening up existing public bus routes to private bus operators in 2016 be good? I doubt so, when they (private bus companies) can't even manage a peak hour service well.
it wont be so easy. as some other ppl think.... when private operators came in, what they want will be profit instead. right now, it is so difficult to increase fares, and bus operations arent making money, so why should the private operators came in? they would rather go do some shuttle services/charter services and earn much more on per trip basis , rather have to tie in so much resources and adhere to so much rules and regulations..
-
Originally posted by TIB429E:
911/911E loading seems to be better now.
From what I've seen for 951E loading from st82 alone, the seats are mostly occupied(spotted 3115T/3061P/3075A). Can introduce DD already
Yes both 850E and 951E good candidates for dd. Loading on 982E not picked up as much though. Is it because it does not do Dhoby ghaut?
-
Notice 163 loadings has drop slightly.. 855 & 980 need another BSEP..off peak freq damm bad.At least 961 got slight improvement.981 another bus also..Am peak damm packed!!