SMRT MAN NG363F A24 discussions
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
It's really ignorant to say that just coz it's long-distance, hence DDs should be used.. Coz even though the distance is long, turnover rates may be high and not many pax may be really travelling long distance...
For eg. 222, very little (sometimes none) take the full length from Bedok int to Chai Chee, most pax alight at Bedok Nth Ave 3 or Fengshan... Similarly, pax seldom take from chai chee to bedok int, they alight at Bedok Stn stop instead...
Another eg. Is 913, most commuters on that svc take 2-4 stops only... Then 95% of them spill out at Admiralty Stn, ALL AT ONCE. With one more exit area, bendies help to clear the load much faster and ensure the punctuality of buses
Thats why it is not realistic to deploy DDs like this... Long distance =/= ppl will take long distance....
I think for townlinks/intra towns that calls at MRT stops mid-journey, they need to clear pax ASAP. We can do nothing much about boarding though. But with a faster exit rate, it will stay at thestop for lesser amount of time. While people may argue that it takes up vital space at the stop (which is true), it is up to whether they want faster turnover (less time spent at vital stop), or less space used at stop (more buses can use the stop at any one time).
Here however, is a question I always wanted to ask. Based on observations by multiple forum users, Svc 23 encounter both short-distance very high turnover sector (Tamp sector), and high long distance sector (PIE sector). If you have a choice, what will you deploy, and why?
@proudtobeme - The Telok Kurau sector of Svc 15 cannot support anything larger then SD, but if they have the chance, they can always try
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
It's really ignorant to say that just coz it's long-distance, hence DDs should be used.. Coz even though the distance is long, turnover rates may be high and not many pax may be really travelling long distance...
For eg. 222, very little (sometimes none) take the full length from Bedok int to Chai Chee, most pax alight at Bedok Nth Ave 3 or Fengshan... Similarly, pax seldom take from chai chee to bedok int, they alight at Bedok Stn stop instead...
Another eg. Is 913, most commuters on that svc take 2-4 stops only... Then 95% of them spill out at Admiralty Stn, ALL AT ONCE. With one more exit area, bendies help to clear the load much faster and ensure the punctuality of buses
Thats why it is not realistic to deploy DDs like this... Long distance =/= ppl will take long distance....
use bendies will ensure punctuaility of buses? everyday i see so many buses of 911/912/913 bunched up... alway 3-4 buses bunched up together..
-
Originally posted by proudtobeme:
sbst shud use bendy on svc 15. loading very high and only sd come. no dd. add many bus but still lot of standee. i avoid svc 15 as i have to stand long distance. bus already come full from tamp when i take at safra. then no one get down at bed reservoir. only kaki bukit peop get down. stand so much time. so i dont take 15 to eunos. i take 21 from safra or i take mrt from tamp.
15 got fleet restriction which i think bendy and tri axles DDs are not suitable for some narrow roads..
-
...
-
Hmm for services like 911/912/913, I believe the buses bunch up because of quite irregular passenger activity and also due to the route. Moreover, In WDL bus interchange some of these buses alight at the alighting point before heading to the boarding point while some directly drive to the boarding point to board/alight (not standardised). Thirldy, all these routes run the 1st loop followed by the 2nd loop and then the 1st loop again (911E/912E/913E) - I am also not sure if after the 2nd 1st loop the bus ends its service or it continues to the 2nd loop again because honestly its quite complicated to observe. So effectively there are 2 different departures for the same service. Plus 912/913 goes through woodlands checkpoint area. All these factors add together, bunching is quite inevitable. A DD on this service will only worsen the bunching situation because the passenger alighting activity becomes yet another factor.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
You are saying no to bendies on 67/969 but okay on sv 15. what is the logic here?
i say as 67/969 can get double decker, no height restruiction. 15 there is height restriction. but now i read may have turning restruction.
i feel my optinion that all routes shud get double decker if no height turning restriction. if have deploy bendy. thst is my logic. bendy hog too much space.
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Hmm for services like 911/912/913, I believe the buses bunch up because of quite irregular passenger activity and also due to the route. Moreover, In WDL bus interchange some of these buses alight at the alighting point before heading to the boarding point while some directly drive to the boarding point to board/alight (not standardised). Thirldy, all these routes run the 1st loop followed by the 2nd loop and then the 1st loop again (911E/912E/913E) - I am also not sure if after the 2nd 1st loop the bus ends its service or it continues to the 2nd loop again because honestly its quite complicated to observe. So effectively there are 2 different departures for the same service. Plus 912/913 goes through woodlands checkpoint area. All these factors add together, bunching is quite inevitable. A DD on this service will only worsen the bunching situation because the passenger alighting activity becomes yet another factor.
for 911/912/913 bendy better than double decker. i in agreemtne with u. need to make all trunk to double decker from bendy then bus stop hogging problem also solve for 911/912/913.
-
Originally posted by ButIAmAToilet:
I think for townlinks/intra towns that calls at MRT stops mid-journey, they need to clear pax ASAP. We can do nothing much about boarding though. But with a faster exit rate, it will stay at thestop for lesser amount of time. While people may argue that it takes up vital space at the stop (which is true), it is up to whether they want faster turnover (less time spent at vital stop), or less space used at stop (more buses can use the stop at any one time).
Here however, is a question I always wanted to ask. Based on observations by multiple forum users, Svc 23 encounter both short-distance very high turnover sector (Tamp sector), and high long distance sector (PIE sector). If you have a choice, what will you deploy, and why?
@proudtobeme - The Telok Kurau sector of Svc 15 cannot support anything larger then SD, but if they have the chance, they can always try
okay i did not know. on svc 23 close to where i live. always full. i dun know why still have one single decker. need to be fully double deckerised. many tamasek student board but also many long travel people board bus. very good profit make i sure.
-
Originally posted by ButIAmAToilet:
I think for townlinks/intra towns that calls at MRT stops mid-journey, they need to clear pax ASAP. We can do nothing much about boarding though. But with a faster exit rate, it will stay at thestop for lesser amount of time. While people may argue that it takes up vital space at the stop (which is true), it is up to whether they want faster turnover (less time spent at vital stop), or less space used at stop (more buses can use the stop at any one time).
Here however, is a question I always wanted to ask. Based on observations by multiple forum users, Svc 23 encounter both short-distance very high turnover sector (Tamp sector), and high long distance sector (PIE sector). If you have a choice, what will you deploy, and why?
@proudtobeme - The Telok Kurau sector of Svc 15 cannot support anything larger then SD, but if they have the chance, they can always try
DD la ofc
Tamp sector dont even hv high turnover ratws to start with. Many of tamp pax board/alight at one single stop, at a place called Temasek Polytechnic.
Besides, no of long haul pax is exceedingly high during peak. So no need to fear the top deck not being filled up.
Hence given that the long distance pax would fill up the upp deck, and the short haul pax would stand below and alight at a centralised position, there is optimum usage of DD buses and thus makes sense to deploy DD and not bendies, which will decrease pax comfort, and worsen the already atrocious traffic conditions on the PIE and in Little India.
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Hmm for services like 911/912/913, I believe the buses bunch up because of quite irregular passenger activity and also due to the route. Moreover, In WDL bus interchange some of these buses alight at the alighting point before heading to the boarding point while some directly drive to the boarding point to board/alight (not standardised). Thirldy, all these routes run the 1st loop followed by the 2nd loop and then the 1st loop again (911E/912E/913E) - I am also not sure if after the 2nd 1st loop the bus ends its service or it continues to the 2nd loop again because honestly its quite complicated to observe. So effectively there are 2 different departures for the same service. Plus 912/913 goes through woodlands checkpoint area. All these factors add together, bunching is quite inevitable. A DD on this service will only worsen the bunching situation because the passenger alighting activity becomes yet another factor.
If you say about deploying the Double Deckers on Woodlands Intra-Towns, I suggest that SMRT should deploy them on the Main Loop (911 - Ave 2 , 912 - Ave 7, 913 - Circle), whereby they are crossover-ing from other Trunk Service (or Spare Bus perhaps?).
(In my opinion) The Woodlands Checkpoint loop should not have any problems - as there are 856, 903, 950 clearing the Checkpoint crowds.
Perhaps SMRT (or LTA) implant a new shortworking / trunk service which helps relieve the high demand around the Marsiling area (such as connecting the residents / students from the SAS from Woodlands Street 41 to the nearest Marsiling MRT Station). -
Originally posted by SMB315C:
If you say about deploying the Double Deckers on Woodlands Intra-Towns, I suggest that SMRT should deploy them on the Main Loop (911 - Ave 2 , 912 - Ave 7, 913 - Circle), whereby they are crossover-ing from other Trunk Service (or Spare Bus perhaps?).
(In my opinion) The Woodlands Checkpoint loop should not have any problems - as there are 856, 903, 950 clearing the Checkpoint crowds.
Perhaps SMRT (or LTA) implant a new shortworking / trunk service which helps relieve the high demand around the Marsiling area (such as connecting the residents / students from the SAS from Woodlands Street 41 to the nearest Marsiling MRT Station).woodland area 911, 912, 913 shud use only bendy. 900, 901, 903 can use double decker. 856 shoudl always use doube decker.
-
Originally posted by proudtobeme:
woodland area 911, 912, 913 shud use only bendy. 900, 901, 903 can use double decker. 856 shoudl always use doube decker.
Need to first fulfil the DD quota for trunk services. Right now there are not enough DDs even to cater to existing trunk services; why are we even speaking about woodland feeders / intra towns getting DDs!?!?!
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:
If HK can do well without bendies, why can't SG? We just need more education to encourage pax to move to the upper deck (except the less mobile and wheelchair-bound which I understand).
HK has a population density of 6544 persons per sq km, much tighter than Singapore's 7615 persons per sq km. With our limited land space and smaller integrated transport hubs, having DDs & SDs only will work better for the country.
Kowloon has a population density of 46,010 persons per sq km (6 times that of Singapore), HK Island has a population density of 15,990 persons per sq km (with much of that going to bungalows built on pockets of uneven terrain), with leaving a spacious 3,930 persons per sq km in the N.T. There is less usable land in Hong Kong than the whole of Singapore, and even fewer are truly flat grounds. That explains the popularity of point blocks, which makes it easier to build since you have fewer issues of uneven terrain to contend with for each building.
And even with 3,930 persons per sq km, Yuen Long routes like 68M/968/68X/268C could come once every 4 to 8 minutes during peak hours, fill to the brim within a couple of stops and head out to the expressway. To support express bus services, you need that kind of density. There is enough demand to operate FFw-style peak routes like Rt.268X which skips Cheung Sha Wan and Sham Shui Po. On weekends where demand is lesser, Rt.268B runs express to Tsim Sha Tsui once every 30 minutes.
Rt.260X sees brisk business competing with the MTR WRL for travels between Tsim Sha Tsui and Tuen Mun (with long queues to boot at nights) while Rt.269B offers an alternative for those who do not wish to have to transfer to the LRT system.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
Kowloon has a population density of 46,010 persons per sq km (6 times that of Singapore), HK Island has a population density of 15,990 persons per sq km (with much of that going to bungalows built on pockets of uneven terrain), with leaving a spacious 3,930 persons per sq km in the N.T. There is less usable land in Hong Kong than the whole of Singapore, and even fewer are truly flat grounds. That explains the popularity of point blocks, which makes it easier to build since you have fewer issues of uneven terrain to contend with for each building.
And even with 3,930 persons per sq km, Yuen Long routes like 68M/968/68X/268C could come once every 4 to 8 minutes during peak hours, fill to the brim within a couple of stops and head out to the expressway. To support express bus services, you need that kind of density. There is enough demand to operate FFw-style peak routes like Rt.268X which skips Cheung Sha Wan and Sham Shui Po. On weekends where demand is lesser, Rt.268B runs express to Tsim Sha Tsui once every 30 minutes.
Rt.260X sees brisk business competing with the MTR WRL for travels between Tsim Sha Tsui and Tuen Mun (with long queues to boot at nights) while Rt.269B offers an alternative for those who do not wish to have to transfer to the LRT system.
He's talking about DDs vs. Bendies
And btw the question that bothered me the day I came back to SG is why cant more express routes be introduced in SG to curb car usage on the roads?!
-
(I am sorry to discuss this on the A24 topic but its a reply to what was posted above)
Yes agreed. Since the existing routes are very hard to change or remove because of public outroars due to loss of direct linkages, I would have preferred BSEP to introduce more full-day express or semi-express routes instead of all those short haul trunks that are quite poorly planned and are no more than just taking up the precious space on our already congested bus interchanges. After all BSEP was planned to provide people with alternative bus routes to solve the overcrowding on the MRT right? Moreover those short haul trunks are encouraging people to still transfer to MRT and this will never solve the overcrowding problems on our MRT lines.
The only well planned BSEP routes are 43M (though I would say this service could just do split shifts), 50, 860, 972 (and I gather 4 and 20 are also good but I havent taken before). I would attribute 972 to public pressure there and I believe that it still is the only BSEP service with a long express sector. Express Services like 502 and 518 could be introduced from other HDB towns towards Chinatown, CBD, Orchard areas and I am sure people will be willing to pay express fares for a more comfortable ride than on the congested trains. Or even Services like 5, 39, 59, 85, 161, 168, 857, 965, 966, 969, 985 when PTOs were still planning the routes. Such routes also command a better usage for the massive purchase of DD buses. When 67 sees DD buses, I believe it will become even slower and then become another service like 51 - such services are no longer viable in today's Singapore with MRT connections and should just split into 2. I dont think people will ever take 67 from CCK to tampines or 51 from JE to HG Ctrl.
Planning short haul routes and just throwing DDs there is the most disastrous thing. one problem with DDs is the dwell times due to passenger activities and DDs on short haul services only lengthen travel time. In a city like SG where you can only use DDs in large quantities due to space constraints for Bendys, the routes must be designed to maximally utilise the DD bus. Thats why HK doesnt even need bendys in the first place. LTA seems to be designing routes that are more suited for bendy/SD and dumping DDs into them and this is the sadest case. If you decided to use DD bus in large quantities, design suitable routes.
-
Photo credits Shahirwan
-
8001E
-
Svc like 67 ought to use DDs for e comfort of passengers given the routes they ply..I rather sit at the upper deck in a jam rather than have to stand on a bendy!
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
use bendies will ensure punctuaility of buses? everyday i see so many buses of 911/912/913 bunched up... alway 3-4 buses bunched up together..
bendies bunch up due to certain irregular delay/jams.
Well, at least you don't see 4 Bendy/SDs bunch up on 963 together right? Compared to the 4 DD bunch up now..
-
Originally posted by proudtobeme:
woodland area 911, 912, 913 shud use only bendy. 900, 901, 903 can use double decker. 856 shoudl always use doube decker.
903 DDs?! W.L.L. You're going to get complain each day..
Cases like 169 already shown that short routes aren't suitable for DDs! Try boarding the 7:25PM trip(from Woodlands), MOST of the workers/residents will stay at the lower deck, seldom would people go up.
For the workers, most of them would commute more than 5-8 stops. However, not all will head up. You can get passengers that rather get pushed/shoved than moving up for more space.
-
Originally posted by randomguy10:
Hmm for services like 911/912/913, I believe the buses bunch up because of quite irregular passenger activity and also due to the route. Moreover, In WDL bus interchange some of these buses alight at the alighting point before heading to the boarding point while some directly drive to the boarding point to board/alight (not standardised). Thirldy, all these routes run the 1st loop followed by the 2nd loop and then the 1st loop again (911E/912E/913E) - I am also not sure if after the 2nd 1st loop the bus ends its service or it continues to the 2nd loop again because honestly its quite complicated to observe. So effectively there are 2 different departures for the same service. Plus 912/913 goes through woodlands checkpoint area. All these factors add together, bunching is quite inevitable. A DD on this service will only worsen the bunching situation because the passenger alighting activity becomes yet another factor.
911 :
AM - Qihua Pri Sch Jam + Longer waiting time @St81/Av9 traffic junction + St82's stops.PM - Same as AM + longer waiting time at Berth11 causing longer queues.
912 :
AM - Pri/Sec schs loading + Ring Rd Loading + Dr50/Av4 traffic junction single lane = 3 lane + Waiting time to turn into Ring Rd + Admiralty loadingPM - Pri/Sec schs loading + Admiralty loading + Dr50/Av4 traffic junction
913 :
AM - Wdl Circle + Admiralty loading + Marsiling loadingPM - Marsiling loading + Admiralty loading
All inclusive of interchange jam during PM peak..Seriously love how they "maximize" a small space.. -
Originally posted by TIB429E:
bendies bunch up due to certain irregular delay/jams.
Well, at least you don't see 4 Bendy/SDs bunch up on 963 together right? Compared to the 4 DD bunch up now..
Are you trying to say 963 was performing better with bendies? Then the answer is NO. The service level on 963 has improved multifold from the time it has got majority DD high capacity buses.
-
Originally posted by TIB429E:
903 DDs?! W.L.L. You're going to get complain each day..
Cases like 169 already shown that short routes aren't suitable for DDs! Try boarding the 7:25PM trip(from Woodlands), MOST of the workers/residents will stay at the lower deck, seldom would people go up.
For the workers, most of them would commute more than 5-8 stops. However, not all will head up. You can get passengers that rather get pushed/shoved than moving up for more space.
169 is doing excellent with DDs in the AMK-Yishun belt. Haven't observed in WDL... but at Yishun MRT towards Seneko you can see full upper deck both AM and PM peak.
-
Originally posted by TIB429E:
903 DDs?! W.L.L. You're going to get complain each day..
Cases like 169 already shown that short routes aren't suitable for DDs! Try boarding the 7:25PM trip(from Woodlands), MOST of the workers/residents will stay at the lower deck, seldom would people go up.
For the workers, most of them would commute more than 5-8 stops. However, not all will head up. You can get passengers that rather get pushed/shoved than moving up for more space.
Agreed... Bendies better option for 903... and as I said lets not even discuss DDs for feeders/intra-towns because there aren't enough DDs even for long trunk services, let alone short trunks and feeders.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
Kowloon has a population density of 46,010 persons per sq km (6 times that of Singapore), HK Island has a population density of 15,990 persons per sq km (with much of that going to bungalows built on pockets of uneven terrain), with leaving a spacious 3,930 persons per sq km in the N.T. There is less usable land in Hong Kong than the whole of Singapore, and even fewer are truly flat grounds. That explains the popularity of point blocks, which makes it easier to build since you have fewer issues of uneven terrain to contend with for each building.
And even with 3,930 persons per sq km, Yuen Long routes like 68M/968/68X/268C could come once every 4 to 8 minutes during peak hours, fill to the brim within a couple of stops and head out to the expressway. To support express bus services, you need that kind of density. There is enough demand to operate FFw-style peak routes like Rt.268X which skips Cheung Sha Wan and Sham Shui Po. On weekends where demand is lesser, Rt.268B runs express to Tsim Sha Tsui once every 30 minutes.
Rt.260X sees brisk business competing with the MTR WRL for travels between Tsim Sha Tsui and Tuen Mun (with long queues to boot at nights) while Rt.269B offers an alternative for those who do not wish to have to transfer to the LRT system.
Your point was obviously lost on the fellow who "replied" to you earlier.
Sad but expected outcome really.