Double-deckers not right fit for S'pore roads?
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
The fact: It takes 0.2 seconds per pax longer to disembark from a DD compared to SD.
Did anyone even ask why in the world Prof Lee would use such a metric?
Apparently not.
The guess is simple: The method of using the length of time to disembark all pax divided by the number of pax is to normalise the length of time, against the bias that is the larger amount of people for the DD to disembark.
In laymen terms, it means that DDs hold at bus-stops longer for reasons beyond that there are more pax.
Using logic, it has to be the lay-out of the DD, coupled to the fact that pax has to walk more within the bus, to exit. Thus adding to the extra dwell-time.
Prof Lee then understandably questions the wisdom of continuing the current layout, which is also a logical conclusion, and a legitimate question.
But it inspires howls and wails and then irrelevantly gleeful discussions about what service should get what.
If numbers are not your forte (nor fault of yours), and respect is not in your dictionary, then is it really the education system that is solely to blame for both at the same time?
Please think about it.
Edit: I re-read the article in case I sound stupid when I accuse others of thus. That's when I found the line in the article: The study was done based on an equal passenger to passenger ratio, to eliminate the expectation that a double-decker would have a longer dwelling time since it can hold more passengers.
Guess the education did some good for me after all.
It is implied (and indeed stated in the news article) that the current double-decker bus in Singapore design creates bottlenecks for alighting passengers.
But there is some validity to criticism on the possibility that the research focuses on each individual bus at the bus stop and not the capacity of the route or bus stop as a whole in the same given timeframe (such as alighting/boarding capacity per hour at a bus stop, possibly not taking into consideration additional time spent waiting behind an articulated bus before alighting, and other macro factors).
Unfortunately I am still not able to retrieve a copy of the full article, but I would be very interested to see what the eight bus types are and the data from this research.
-
No research can be exhaustive.
Speaking of which, none of us have seen the full research paper anyway.
-
I do wonder how receptive LTA would be to this research (and other researches) on bus layout and designs, especially given that they will be the decision-makers in defining requirements in their bus procurements after 2016. LTA did increase the number of doors per car for the Thompson Line to reduce dwelling times.
The issue of passengers crowding around the exit door and not moving to the rear is another long-time problem that needs more than just courtesy campaigns and stickers to be tackled effectively.
-
I smell bullshits..
-
Double-deckers removed - bad public transport service.
You will need more bus drivers, and there are already problems with employment of bus drivers.
-
if each passenger give way to another when climbing up and down those stair the problem should be no problem at all. only problem is the people. People alway the problem for the people using it this so call expert can come out many ideas, still no use if people create problem for people.
-
Ever wonder how the Berlin MAN A39 looks like with skeletal interior? The foams for the ceiling is indeed squeezed to the max!
Something interesting is the 1st Berlin MAN A39 (#3099) is actually a prototype bus, MAN A39 chassis, but built under NeoPlan, hence it's known as NeoMAN A39... The productions were built by MAN, so just MAN A39...
http://www.berliner-verkehrsseiten.de/bus/Fahrzeuge/Typen/DN04/body_dn04.html -
13 plus meter is too long for singapore road. but the design of the stair at the upper deck back is something LTA should look into it
-
double decks buses is at worse when the air-con is faulty, in the hot sunny spore
-
Then we suggest all buses fitted with hopper windows just like UK or spare blower outlets in case of aircon breakdown?At least BCs can continue drive to the termination point right?
-
Originally posted by wsy1234:
13 plus meter is too long for singapore road. but the design of the stair at the upper deck back is something LTA should look into it
If i'm not wrong, LTA had given green light not long ago looking into buses at least 12 meters, SD/DD + 3-doors, so a 13.73 meters MAN A39 or Citaro L could be what they might be looking at, but problem is with the air-conditioning unit as to where to place them...
There is this Neoplan A39 with unique at height of 4.6 meters. It's the only 1 built in the world which I believe there isn't a worry to bump your head to the ceiling no matterif you are at the lower/upperdeck... Though it's impossible to be in many of the countries...
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Then we suggest all buses fitted with hopper windows just like UK or spare blower outlets in case of aircon breakdown?At least BCs can continue drive to the termination point right?
Maybe switch controlled hopper windows would be good
-
I think this Prof has lived in Europe where he see the bendy buses unload passengers faster due to its 3/4 doors compared to our DDs..
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
I think this Prof has lived in Europe where he see the bendy buses unload passengers faster due to its 3/4 doors compared to our DDs..
but ah with the projected 6.9m, is bendy an answer? if DD is not right, is spamming SDs at 1 to 2 mins interval acceptable?
-
Originally posted by TIB1234T:
If i'm not wrong, LTA had given green light not long ago looking into buses at least 12 meters, SD/DD + 3-doors, so a 13.73 meters MAN A39 or Citaro L could be what they might be looking at, but problem is with the air-conditioning unit as to where to place them...
There is this Neoplan A39 with unique at height of 4.6 meters. It's the only 1 built in the world which I believe there isn't a worry to bump your head to the ceiling no matterif you are at the lower/upperdeck... Though it's impossible to be in many of the countries...
our bridges are only 4.5m, and this 4.6m DD certainly needs "escort" ...
-
The A39 is less than 4.5m..theres variety of height option if im not mistaken.. Of course Sg aint suitable for more bendy buses especially for those plying longer and cbd routes..and to think our road users isnt gracious at all especially when it comes to public buses cause of their mindset and attitude..
-
http://www.busandcoachbuyer.com/daimler-engines-wrightbus-targets-euro-growth/2/
if the weather is too hot and air-con is faulty.
Reducing the depth of the windows and their glass thickness from 4mm to 3mm is one of 26 measures that contribute to a weight saving that sees the bus sport an unladen weight figure of only 10,814kg, down from around 12 tonnes previously. Also significant in this respect is the use of lighter Ster seats.
The rationale behind the smaller windows is not only weight saving, it also reduces the solar gain from the sun by around 25%. this is something when design a DD bus SBST should look into.
i know some people like to say the bus engines is too less power for air-con unit to install. but that just a small problem as the spec can change for SBST for sure. by the way it a daimler-engines-wrightbus not a volvo one. hope to see one 3-axis daimer powered DD here soon.
-
When you put a small engine like the 5100cc Daimler engine into a tri axles DD with ac unit the stress will be also felt by the drivers pushing it to the max all the time when it's full loads..What I want is the latest 6 cylinders 7700cc euro 6 with at least 290hp/1140nm...UK version is different bro,They got no air con unit and the speed limiter I'm sure is around 75-85kmh..that's alone make a big different..SMRT buses excel in this pattern(superb low end power compared to SBST) cause they know of the speed limiter imposed..Even their Citaros accelerate well..
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
When you put a small engine like the 5100cc Daimler engine into a tri axles DD with ac unit the stress will be also felt by the drivers pushing it to the max all the time when it's full loads..What I want is the latest 6 cylinders 7700cc euro 6 with at least 290hp/1140nm...UK version is different bro,They got no air con unit and the speed limiter I'm sure is around 75-85kmh..that's alone make a big different..SMRT buses excel in this pattern(superb low end power compared to SBST) cause they know of the speed limiter imposed..Even their Citaros accelerate well..
as i said the engine spec can change to a higher cc for the air-con unit. the orignal volvo wright also had low engine CC for england but when hong kong and singapore buy the bus it a different model offer. and also the new design wright windows on the bus is better for singapore use that what i trying to say. NOT the engine cc i try to compare. also if you read the page the wright company said the spec is not fix. SBST or SMRT should try out a Daimler higher CC engine for it new DD bus and also the new wright design for it future new DD bus. it save energy and more less heat from the sun comfortable to ride in with addional air-con here.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
The A39 is less than 4.5m..theres variety of height option if im not mistaken..
Of course Sg aint suitable for more bendy buses especially for those plying longer and cbd routes..and to think our road users isnt gracious at all especially when it comes to public buses cause of their mindset and attitude..the preserved LO had a plate stating it is a 4.3m bus. (was it? or VOs?)
the road users are a big problem. the people taking public transport is another. to add on, the LTA screwed up. maybe the gov't is high up in their ivory tower. all start to play the blame game.
put DDs, complain slow loading. put bendies, complain space. put rigids, complain packed buses.
-
personally i feel that government should not do anything on the road. remove all bus lane, ERP and COE and no need to use people $$$$ to buy buses and mrt. just let us had our money back. complain don't care. let all the cars and buses flood the road here.
-
There is a strong misconception on time taken by bus on bus stop
Situation 1: Bus with 50 pax
No major difference between time taken to load/unload for rigid/bendy/DD.
Best choice: SD
Situation 2: Bus with 70-75 pax
Fastest: Bendy, then DD, slowest rigid. Observed so many times on 20/851/963 that when a SD is full with 70+ pax, it takes more time at bus stop to first unload pax, and then board.
Now consider same with DD. If there are 75 pax, there is no standing. People easily board and alight.
Bendy is fastest due to two doors but occupies more space at bus stop, adding more time for other buses that have to wait
Best choice: DD for high volume feeder/trunk, bendy for feeders/intratown
Situation 3: Bus with 100 pax
This situation has become rare ever since BSEP especially on SBST side. SMRT still has this problem.
In this case, rigid is faster than DD and bendy is fastest. But rigids cannot manage the load, so instead of putting 2 SDs, you put one DD and hence, DD is more efficient.
Best choice: DD for trunk, Bendy for feeder/intratown
Seriously, this professor needs more transport and on-the-ground education.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
There is a strong misconception on time taken by bus on bus stop
Situation 1: Bus with 50 pax
No major difference between time taken to load/unload for rigid/bendy/DD.
Best choice: SD
Situation 2: Bus with 70-75 pax
Fastest: Bendy, then DD, slowest rigid. Observed so many times on 20/851/963 that when a SD is full with 70+ pax, it takes more time at bus stop to first unload pax, and then board.
Now consider same with DD. If there are 75 pax, there is no standing. People easily board and alight.
Bendy is fastest due to two doors but occupies more space at bus stop, adding more time for other buses that have to wait
Best choice: DD for high volume feeder/trunk, bendy for feeders/intratown
Situation 3: Bus with 100 pax
This situation has become rare ever since BSEP especially on SBST side. SMRT still has this problem.
In this case, rigid is faster than DD and bendy is fastest. But rigids cannot manage the load, so instead of putting 2 SDs, you put one DD and hence, DD is more efficient.
Best choice: DD for trunk, Bendy for feeder/intratown
Seriously, this professor needs more transport and on-the-ground education.
I agree with your 3 situations but, this is still an oversimplification of the actual situation that does not take into account of the boarding and alighting pattern of different routes.
For example, some trunk services that pass through MRT stations and have been acting as feeders as well due to BSEP. The alighting and boarding with DD can be even slower than with a SD, due to the bottleneck of the single staircase (20 pax alighting from upper deck, and 20 boarding pax have to wait for all of them to clear and can't simultaneously board and alight unlike on SD and Bendys). Example: 154 at Clementi MRT towards BNL at Pm peak, but there's many more...
In short, with different boarding and alighting patterns, the flow of passengers within the bus also can affect the dwell time.
With our bus network undergoing transition into a short-medium distance transport for passengers, running DDs with high pax turnover will just remove the benefits that DDs provides. This was one of the reasons why Sydney Buses was less enthused with using DDs during peak hour in the city center.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
There is a strong misconception on time taken by bus on bus stop
Situation 1: Bus with 50 pax
No major difference between time taken to load/unload for rigid/bendy/DD.
Best choice: SD
Situation 2: Bus with 70-75 pax
Fastest: Bendy, then DD, slowest rigid. Observed so many times on 20/851/963 that when a SD is full with 70+ pax, it takes more time at bus stop to first unload pax, and then board.
Now consider same with DD. If there are 75 pax, there is no standing. People easily board and alight.
Bendy is fastest due to two doors but occupies more space at bus stop, adding more time for other buses that have to wait
Best choice: DD for high volume feeder/trunk, bendy for feeders/intratown
Situation 3: Bus with 100 pax
This situation has become rare ever since BSEP especially on SBST side. SMRT still has this problem.
In this case, rigid is faster than DD and bendy is fastest. But rigids cannot manage the load, so instead of putting 2 SDs, you put one DD and hence, DD is more efficient.
Best choice: DD for trunk, Bendy for feeder/intratown
Seriously, this professor needs more transport and on-the-ground education.
Bus Service with Peak Loading less than 60
Rigids = Bendies = DDs (in terms of load rate)
but isn't it a waste to put DD or even bendies for such routes?
Bus Service with Peak Loading 60 to 90
with regards to loading rate,
Bendies < Rigids < DDs
DDs have more seats, takes up as much space as rigids. the stairs is one of the issues, it cannot do simultaneous boarding and alighting. owing to its height, it has higher centre of gravity, it is more likely to topple.
Bendies allows for quicker alighting with both of its rear doors as opposed to the only doors on DDs and Rigids. it also turns easily with the help of the flexible body. it has some drawbacks. it takes about 1.5 times the space but having similar capacity as DDs.
spamming rigids (where height & space are issues)
bendies (where height is issues)
DDs (preferably)
Bus Service with Peak Loading more than 90
...
spamming bendies
more DDs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDs is more desirable, when the service route has no height restrictions, nor very tight turns.
With BSEP, most service have a lower Peak Loading with SBST leading. SMRT had only received rigids till now. serveral services under SMRT has loadings that requires some bendies or DDs.