Government contracting model for public bus industry
-
actually, why not build the replacement depot opposite Boon Lay MRT Station along Boon Lay Way? Anyway, Jurong Central Park is only meant to be interim (as at in the early 2000s. not sure if plans have changed). might as well build replacement bus depot there. next to Boon Lay Bus Interchange. Can better manage bus services. :)
-
Originally posted by ButIAmAToilet:
48 to CBP, 45 to YCK, 128, 502 don't need care, 265, 268, roadside terminal (YCK no space), 185 to Joo Koon
I would not like to see sv 48 being amended to CBP unless it makes a detour at Bedok Rd, Upp Changi Rd and Simei Ave.Currently, although the demand for sv 48 in this area is mainly from Tanah Merah MRT to Bedok South Ave 3, there are still people using sv 48 to Bedok Market etc. There are also some people who take sv 48 from the one bus stop along Bedok North Ave 4 to Tanah Merah MRT, which is the nearest MRT station for that industrial area. (I have actually suggested sv 48 to be amended to Bedok North St 5 before entering BNDEP.) Therefore, if sv 48 is simply amended to CBP via Upp Changi Rd East, while it provides more direct link from CBP to Tanah Merah MRT, it will affect these 2 groups of people I've mentioned.
Having sv 48 extended to Bedok Int is a good idea and can replace 17A, although the route will be too long and windy. To Tampines is also not bad considering there's already somewhat strong demand on sv 10 from Tampines Int to Bedok Market area (although not so strong that the bus can be packed to the door). If it's really extended to CBP via Bedok Rd, Upp Changi Rd and Simei Ave, it is also useful in relieving crowd on sv 31 from ITE College East to Tanah Merah MRT, and the additional time from Tanah Merah to CBP is not really significant.
Just my two cents worth.
-
Meanwhile, talking about SLBP, if 185 and 502 are really kicked out, can we have this (kind of industrial) service from Boon Lay that plies Jln Boon Lay, International Rd, Soon Lee Rd, Soon Lee Dr, Pioneer Rd North, Jurong West St 63 (Pioneer MRT) and then to somewhere in Jurong West not connected to Pioneer MRT?
-
tbh, I feel that 502 can be shortened to Boon Lay. in fact, I think we should re-route it to become true-express and extend its coverage to Taman Jurong.
whereas for 185, this is a school bus for many people at Jurong West Street 61/71/91/81/Avenue 5/Avenue 3 to go to WWSS, HYSS, FHSS, HKSS, etcetera, and for many people at Jurong West Avenue 1 to go to WWSS, PSS, JYSS, etcetera.
outside Jurong, 185 offers the unique direct bus connection between Chinese Garden and Clementi, although sometimes impeded by traffic congestions.
if cannot terminate at Soon Lee Bus Depot, my suggestion is to create a roadside bus terminal near Soon Lee Bus Depot for 185. If we re-route it to Joo Koon, it's going to make a direction of 185 beyond 20km. If we shorten it to Boon Lay, it's going to affect a lot of people, while make 185 less useful. Best is to retain the route, while simply create a roadside bus terminal near Soon Lee Bus Depot for it to terminate.
-
Originally posted by array88:
I would not like to see sv 48 being amended to CBP unless it makes a detour at Bedok Rd, Upp Changi Rd and Simei Ave.Currently, although the demand for sv 48 in this area is mainly from Tanah Merah MRT to Bedok South Ave 3, there are still people using sv 48 to Bedok Market etc. There are also some people who take sv 48 from the one bus stop along Bedok North Ave 4 to Tanah Merah MRT, which is the nearest MRT station for that industrial area. (I have actually suggested sv 48 to be amended to Bedok North St 5 before entering BNDEP.) Therefore, if sv 48 is simply amended to CBP via Upp Changi Rd East, while it provides more direct link from CBP to Tanah Merah MRT, it will affect these 2 groups of people I've mentioned.
Having sv 48 extended to Bedok Int is a good idea and can replace 17A, although the route will be too long and windy. To Tampines is also not bad considering there's already somewhat strong demand on sv 10 from Tampines Int to Bedok Market area (although not so strong that the bus can be packed to the door). If it's really extended to CBP via Bedok Rd, Upp Changi Rd and Simei Ave, it is also useful in relieving crowd on sv 31 from ITE College East to Tanah Merah MRT, and the additional time from Tanah Merah to CBP is not really significant.
Just my two cents worth.
Yes, the detour I had in mind is also via Upp Changi Rd. However, I am not sure if the demand to Bedok North Industrial will be affected or not.
-
Fruit for thought: apart from transiting to Government Contracting Model, what are other solutions to lower operating costs of public bus services - without affecting manpower and welfare of employees?
at this moment, I know the following may work:
- 1. Use Single standard buses instead of High-capacity buses on services which do not need them during non-peak hours, or
- 1b. Use two Single standard buses (coupled/brunched together) instead of using one Double Decker bus during peak hours. During non-peak hours, only one Single standard bus is used.
- 2. Use less-complicated systems, to reduce use of fuel while prevent over-heating of components.
- 2b. Use solar energy to run buses.
- 3. Re-organise bus networks to utilise resources more effectively.
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
Fruit for thought: apart from transiting to Government Contracting Model, what are other solutions to lower operating costs of public bus services - without affecting manpower and welfare of employees?
at this moment, I know the following may work:
- 1. Use Single standard buses instead of High-capacity buses on services which do not need them during non-peak hours, or
- 1b. Use two Single standard buses (coupled/brunched together) instead of using one Double Decker bus during peak hours. During non-peak hours, only one Single standard bus is used.
- 2. Use less-complicated systems, to reduce use of fuel while prevent over-heating of components.
- 2b. Use solar energy to run buses.
- 3. Re-organise bus networks to utilise resources more effectively.
If u look at annual report, the main expense is STAFF COST/SALARY....and everyone will expect increase in salary each year... so cost will definitely go up.
-
-deleted-
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
Fruit for thought: apart from transiting to Government Contracting Model, what are other solutions to lower operating costs of public bus services - without affecting manpower and welfare of employees?
at this moment, I know the following may work:
- 1. Use Single standard buses instead of High-capacity buses on services which do not need them during non-peak hours, or
- 1b. Use two Single standard buses (coupled/brunched together) instead of using one Double Decker bus during peak hours. During non-peak hours, only one Single standard bus is used.
- 2. Use less-complicated systems, to reduce use of fuel while prevent over-heating of components.
- 2b. Use solar energy to run buses.
- 3. Re-organise bus networks to utilise resources more effectively.
You siao ah every svc use SDs..Later ppl like you will complain first why no high capacity buses bla bla bla.Use your brain la brother..You expect svc like 147 use all SDs also ah?Simi LJ lei
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
You siao ah every svc use SDs..Later ppl like you will complain first why no high capacity buses bla bla bla.Use your brain la brother..You expect svc like 147 use all SDs also ah?Simi LJ lei
but... apparently, that's what SBS has been doing, at least from what I observe, on feeder services.
brunch two SDs together, or brunch one SD and one DD together...
apparently, SD capacity is around 30 seats around 47 standing (in my opinion). total around 77 passengers.
apparently DD capacity is around 50 standing around 72 seats (in my opinion). total around 122 passengers.
apparently, two SDs capacity (154) is higher than one DD (122).
well, just saying la...
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
If u look at annual report, the main expense is STAFF COST/SALARY....and everyone will expect increase in salary each year... so cost will definitely go up.
And there is a shortage of drivers. Expect that component to shoot up when new operators start coming in and compete for drivers.
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
tbh, I feel that 502 can be shortened to Boon Lay. in fact, I think we should re-route it to become true-express and extend its coverage to Taman Jurong.
whereas for 185, this is a school bus for many people at Jurong West Street 61/71/91/81/Avenue 5/Avenue 3 to go to WWSS, HYSS, FHSS, HKSS, etcetera, and for many people at Jurong West Avenue 1 to go to WWSS, PSS, JYSS, etcetera.
outside Jurong, 185 offers the unique direct bus connection between Chinese Garden and Clementi, although sometimes impeded by traffic congestions.
if cannot terminate at Soon Lee Bus Depot, my suggestion is to create a roadside bus terminal near Soon Lee Bus Depot for 185. If we re-route it to Joo Koon, it's going to make a direction of 185 beyond 20km. If we shorten it to Boon Lay, it's going to affect a lot of people, while make 185 less useful. Best is to retain the route, while simply create a roadside bus terminal near Soon Lee Bus Depot for it to terminate.
Why would it be such an issue? You can redirect the route's end towards Pioneer MRT Station from Pioneer Road North and back to Boon Lay Interchange (follow Route 241).
-
Usage of single decker buses only is definitely not a wise idea. Do you know how many more trips you need to add? And this affects the number of drivers needed, parking space, operational costs, space taken up on the roads. If all go to SD and bunch 2 SDs to solve the problem, I rather use 1 bendy bus. Atleast save 1 driver and fuel consumption. One of the reason SMRT shift from bendy to DD for trunk services was because of space on the roads and depots (Bendy is more fuel-efficient than DD, its just higher maintainence costs due to the articulation joint). Going back to SDs ONLY will be totally against. DDs are the only way to solve our limited space problem.
SBST is using back to back SDs on feeders because they dont wanna purchase bendy bus what. DDs on short haul feeder services dont really work as well as 2 SDs because of the dwell times and the limited space due to people not wanting to go to upper deck. They should explore bendy bus in such a case to lower costs.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Why would it be such an issue? You can redirect the route's end towards Pioneer MRT Station from Pioneer Road North and back to Boon Lay Interchange (follow Route 241).
If so, we can take this opportunity to extend the coverage of route 185, instead of just letting it duplicate 241/179 to Boon Lay Interchange.
from Pioneer Road North,
- Jurong West Street 63
- Jurong West Street 61
- Jurong West Street 62
- Jurong West Street 65
- Jurong West Street 63
- Jurong West Street 64
- Jurong West Central 3
- Boon Lay Bus Interchange
length to Boon Lay is around 1.9km in both directions.compared to the deleted sector (0.9km / 1.0km) to Soon Lee, this is an extension of around 1-km to both directions. around 0.6km longer than if we were to simply make it duplicate 241 and 179. but if can serve more people, why not? -
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Usage of single decker buses only is definitely not a wise idea. Do you know how many more trips you need to add? And this affects the number of drivers needed, parking space, operational costs, space taken up on the roads. If all go to SD and bunch 2 SDs to solve the problem, I rather use 1 bendy bus. At least save 1 driver and fuel consumption. One of the reason SMRT shift from bendy to DD for trunk services was because of space on the roads and depots (Bendy is more fuel-efficient than DD, its just higher maintenance costs due to the articulation joint). Going back to SDs ONLY will be totally against. DDs are the only way to solve our limited space problem.
SBST is using back to back SDs on feeders because they don't wanna purchase bendy bus what. DDs on short haul feeder services don't really work as well as 2 SDs because of the dwell times and the limited space due to people not wanting to go to upper deck. They should explore bendy bus in such a case to lower costs.
Thanks for the recommendation on having articulated buses on feeder routes operated by SBS Transit. Well, articulated buses have an additional door for alighting, so definitely dwell time is lower. In articulated buses, people will definitely walk to the back for empty seats, so more likely the seats will be 100% taken. In articulated buses, standing is allowed at every part of it, so definitely standing capacity is higher. However, the seating capacity is lower (AB 54: two-SDBs ~60). Nonetheless, overall capacity should be higher on one Articulated bus than two Single Deck bus.
Well, my idea based on the method used on LRT where two train cars are coupled during peak hours to increase capacity. The reason why I write this is because I was on a double-decker bus just now at around 10am, and the upper deck was 100% empty throughout the journey. Personally, I feel that it is a waste of resources, when just one SD is good enough. Using SD instead of DD will lower operating costs during non-peak hours, however only in the petrol component. Nonetheless, consider how much of a day DDs are required versus how much does not require DDs, I think it is better to just waste resources during that short period of low capacity - if there is an excess number of DDs.
For all we know, maybe having two SDs run together is an indication that SBS Transit is considering having Articulated buses.
Whereas for having one SD and one DD run together, I think a possible reason is because SBS Transit may have an excess number of DDs.
-
Hopefully Depots like Soon Lee,Ang Mo Kio,Hougang will be retained.
-
Yes I do agree to the part where DDs can be substituted out to SDs when the loading is not that high. But in such a case, a swap must be done mid day and I am not sure how much of a cost this will incur (consider having to drive a SD bus from depot to interchange and than driving the DD bus back to depot). Maybe the cost of just operating the DD full-day is more cost efficient and less of an administrative hassle as opposed to the switch?
But this case is only prevalent in services that have alot of DDs and the loading is only very high during peak hours. In services where there arent many DDs, SBST usually already operates the DDs in split shifts. In cases like 161, SBST does replace quite a few DD slots with SDs as well due to lesser loading -
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Yes I do agree to the part where DDs can be substituted out to SDs when the loading is not that high. But in such a case, a swap must be done mid day and I am not sure how much of a cost this will incur (consider having to drive a SD bus from depot to interchange and than driving the DD bus back to depot). Maybe the cost of just operating the DD full-day is more cost efficient and less of an administrative hassle as opposed to the switch?
But this case is only prevalent in services that have alot of DDs and the loading is only very high during peak hours. In services where there arent many DDs, SBST usually already operates the DDs in split shifts. In cases like 161, SBST does replace quite a few DD slots with SDs as well due to lesser loadingTo add on to your point, the population in Singapore is always increasing. As the population increase, demand for public bus services will increase, thus the loading on bus services will increase. To cater to the increasing demand, it may be more wise to have Double Decker buses instead of Single Deck buses, even during non-peak hours.
Furthermore, aside from brunching two Single Deck together, and one Single Deck and one Double Decker together, there is another brunch combination - two Double Decker together.
Would having 100% Double Decker buses be the way to go, eventually? Maybe not 100%, because some bus services may either be in the decline of demand, or serve areas with low demand. So, a more appropriate question is, would having more Double Decker buses than Single Deck buses be the way to go?
-
Well, before anyone starts debating on bus models, let me remind everyone that Singapore is land-scarce. More importantly, the bus interchanges owned by SBS Transit do not have parking lots to accommodate articulated buses. Maybe only Boon Lay Bus Interchange, when (if) all the four non-feeder SMRT bus services change to use non-DD as high capacity instead of Articulated. Just nice, Boon Lay has around five feeder, so can do a swoop. To make up for that one feeder, maybe can also swoop with the 179/199 parking lots next to the SMRT ones. But, besides Boon Lay, I do not think there is any other SBS Transit bus interchange that has possible provisions for articulated buses on feeder routes.
In short, size is not large enough. I think this is one reason why SBS Transit does not want to have Articulated buses. Likewise, the LTA. Articulated buses would probably remain at SMRT areas of responsibility.
I know, I conveniently ignored the fact that Bukit Batok bus interchange was from SBS to TIBS. Okay, maybe it is possible to re-draw parking lots at a bus interchange to accomodate articulated buses. Nonetheless, there could be a limit in how many articulated buses can fit into an existing SBS Transit bus interchange.
The other reasons are on the Safety and Costs.
- Apparently, the components in articulated buses are prone to over-heating. It is of a certain level of difficulty to drive an articulated bus safely.
- It seems that the cost of maintaining articulated buses is higher than the cost of maintaining double decker buses. Probably because there is one more engine used, and one more aircon unit used, etcetra.
It's going to cost a lot to accomodate articulated buses, a lot more than the cost of changing the roof of bus depots to accomodate double decker buses. Furthermore, the maintenance costs is higher. Therefore, I do not agree that it would reduce costs if we have one articulated bus instead of having two single deck buses, or one double decker bus.
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
Fruit for thought: apart from transiting to Government Contracting Model, what are other solutions to lower operating costs of public bus services - without affecting manpower and welfare of employees?
at this moment, I know the following may work:
- 1. Use Single standard buses instead of High-capacity buses on services which do not need them during non-peak hours, or
- 1b. Use two Single standard buses (coupled/brunched together) instead of using one Double Decker bus during peak hours. During non-peak hours, only one Single standard bus is used.
- 2. Use less-complicated systems, to reduce use of fuel while prevent over-heating of components.
- 2b. Use solar energy to run buses.
- 3. Re-organise bus networks to utilise resources more effectively.
With regards to the point number five on the re-organisation of bus routes, one possible method is to study and adapt how bus networks are developed in other cities, such as Hong Kong.
Apparently, the feeder bus routes in Hong Kong are in lengths of around 20-km. Whereas for trunk bus routes, they are in lengths of around 40-km. If we were to have bus networks in the style of Hong Kong, bus routes will be longer and the number of bus routes will be smaller. Of course, this also means more direct bus connections. However, I am not sure about the number of buses required though. Maybe more, maybe less. I am not sure.
I know there are people here who may be familiar with the bus networks at Hong Kong. Maybe someone with good knowledge of Hong Kong bus networks can suggest how our Singapore bus networks can be revamped to the style of Hong Kong - which may be more cost effective.
Likewise, in other cities, such as London, New York, etcetera.
Yes, I know Singapore is small, but that does not mean our bus routes should also be short. Apparently, our current approach is to have a bus network for every town. Maybe we should change our approach to have a bus network for every region (North, South, East, West, Central). Would it be better in the long-run?
----
apparently, it seems that some of the feeder bus routes are already close to 20-km. If there are new areas near their route, maybe can extend a little bit to serve there.
meanwhile, there are feeder routes less than or equal to 5-km, and some close to 10-km. maybe we can merge them to improve bus connectivity. actually, the original feeder routes at Jurong West which originate from Jurong Bus Interchange are quite good what... maybe can revert to them, while still connect to Boon Lay Bus Interchange via Boon Lay Way. but definitely will need a bus interchange or roadside terminal somewhere else... so maybe a better approach is to follow what has been done at Yishun and Woodlands.
Whereas for the trunk routes, there are already some which are close to 40-km. for example, 30, 182, 170. most of them are around 20-km/25-km. maybe can at least extend them to around 30-km?
well, I am sorry for the spam. but the ideas just keep coming in as I write...
-
Yeah I agree that DDs is the way to go for land-scarce Singapore. But i would say it is still good to view each bus service case-by-case. We all know DDs do well on truck services so that area is clear cut - Just stick to DDs. When it comes to feeder services, it is good to evaluate which is more suitable on a case-by-case basis by per service, bearing the interests of the commuters in mind too. Given a choice people will not want to go upper deck for very short distances and feeders need to remain friendly to older citizens in our aging population who commute within the town.
Articulated buses have higher maintenace costs but they are smaller consumers of fuel because the surface area of the headway of an articulated bus is alot lesser than a DD. In the long run, I am not sure but I would think an articulated bus is cheaper to use than a DD because the fuel adds up to the main daily expenses? It will also give faster run times on feeders and maybe save a few trips too, as opposed to DDs.
But still in land scarce Singapore, we cant have too many articulated buses so it is important to plan well. About overheating issue, yep cant deny that aspect - there have been far alot more fire accidents as compared to DDs but atleast the new MAN A24s are using a more powerful engine than the A22s as opposed to the O405s and O405Gs of the past. About redrawing the parking lots, I think that is not a big issue. Its a one-off thing and i believe the SBST interchanges will have space to accomodate articulated buses for just selected feeder services (the area taken up by 1 articulated bus is still lesser than 2 SDs). Like you said, BBT and CCK interchanges did it. Actually those older SMRT interchanges like the the former Yishun interchange also managed to accomodate articulated buses even though it was built in an era with no articulated buses. Driving-wise, yeah I guess articulated bus needs more skill although it has a smaller turning radius but SMRT hasnt had issues driving them. SBST trialed the longer 19m version last time as opposed to SMRT's 18m version
-
The first BSRF results are out:
http://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=edab460e-1915-43e2-a668-2e2d33792663
As LTA has previously indicated that the BSRF (in a revised form) is one of the KPIs under the new GCM, these results may be relevant in assessing the quality components of the incumbent operators' bids.
-
Info from SMRT BC:
SMRT had already won Bulim contract.
**No wonder lor. Smrt bought so many a22s.
-
Originally posted by A Bus Observer:
Info from SMRT BC:
SMRT had already won Bulim contract.
**No wonder lor. Smrt bought so many a22s.
BC say can belief meh
-
Originally posted by TIB999B:
BC say can belief meh
Seems reliable doe.
BC was from 990. I thought 990 got go to JE INT. But in the end nope, so i went to ask, then he told me that mayb next time 990 will enter JE Int, as SMRT has won.