Fares and "Huge deficit" under GCM "clearly not sustainable"

last SG · 2017-03-09T00:59:57+00:00

Anyway, my point is, let’s hope that the opposition raise whatever we discussed here to the parliament.

dupdup77 SG

I won't be surprised that five years later (2022), many BSEP new routes will be withdrawn. Those that remain would probably merge with surrounding non-BSEP routes.

Hi mr gekpohboy, those that are the only one or few bus services going into the parts of routes will definitely not be withdrawn. For example 120, one of the three services going inside telok blangah estates. Cheers. Thanks.

TIB868X SG

If LTA is bold enough, they could consider having different fares for buses and trains. Surely they do not have the same running costs, and thus, fares to use either system should be considered separately. Fare structure simplicity is not an excuse for fairer collection of fares.

sgbuses SG

Hi mr TIB868X, I did not say loading is not a consideration. I say loading is the least consideration when priorities are compared. I understand your logical explanations.

The NEL rationalisation is brutal. There is no circle line rationalisation because the line is more of a huge looping direction without a very clear impact to the current services at that time. At that time, not much introduction of services too.

For DTL2, only see some minor amendment.

Certainly the loading of bus services will drop even more especially when time goes by. By yr 2030, when all mrt lines planned for are up, expect more trunk bus services to have even lesser people. For long distance traveling, they will tell you to have MRT as part of your route planning.

Up to now, they have not even done any withdrawal of services (as of recent years). We shall see if they will do so for the rationalisation of services which duplicate MRT in the launch of reopening of Bukit panjang interchange and the connected services in the months to come. Or else we better don't keep hampering too much on the topic of rationalisation if it is merely just talk in forums and the authorities don't really carry out rationalisation. Cheers. Thanks.

Redrawing of network should not be equated with loss of routes or access. It could also mean making routes less winding, or provide a more direct access.

Currently, several trunk routes are effectively multiple feeder routes to the nearest MRT station.

TPS Timothy Mok SG

Currently,

Maximum bus fare - S$2.67

Maximum per day - S$5.34

Maximum per week - S$37.38

That's if you take express bus all the time.

As you can see, it's about the same as the fares at London.

So, maybe a simple solution is to charge express fares for all bus services.

Problem solved.

NO. Charge express fares for express services and tourist services, including night services.

TPS Timothy Mok SG

I'm surprised SBS 23, 88, 89, 147, 161, 168, 179, 182 and 198, SMRT 180, 856, 964 and 972, Go-Ahead 2 remains unchanged for now, why would they want to change the whole service?

This stupid betraying issues like the PPSS, which was merged into respective bus services so people will love them; 46, 83, 85, 119 & 256 with DDs?

BusAnalayzer SG

I'm surprised SBS 23, 88, 89, 147, 161, 168, 179, 182 and 198, SMRT 180, 856, 964 and 972, Go-Ahead 2 remains unchanged for now, why would they want to change the whole service?

This stupid betraying issues like the PPSS, which was merged into respective bus services so people will love them; 46, 83, 85, 119 & 256 with DDs?

Add: 117, 127

Badly designed routes: 116, 120, 121, 122, 973

M services such as 139M (exists even though 129 is introduced), 143M (too redundant), 53M (redundant, again!!), 43M (redundant, especially w/ 43 full fleet DD).

The only M variant that really makes sense today is 63M.

PPSS

Excessive buses on feeders

dupdup77 SG

I partially agree. You need new services to connect newer areas/developments where there is no bus service and you need to provide one irrespective of loading.

117 is a good route, but didn't justify DDs from the beginning. 46 route could have been planned better and def. didn't need DDs. These are total waste of resources. Likewise the DDs on 83/85/119.

Introduction of poorly planned routes and random addition of buses just to make people feel good?

Still keep loss making routes running with very low pax because you don't want to take the right steps?

All this costs money and if the fares would increase by 5 cents, now they will increase by 50 cents. It will impact somewhere. Let's not be bullish that this will not lead to higher fare increase and more inconvenience to the poor.

Unless the government will continue to fund the deficit and this in turn is whose money? Is it well spent?

Hi mr busanalyser, what constitutes a poorly planned route? Each bus service when introduced, has its main objectives. Just because it does not equate the 'bus fanatics' idea of good loading makes it a poorly planned route??? Note some routes like 116 when just introduced has super poor loading. After two years, it has its own crowd loading which is single deck worthy. You term it as poorly planned route but LTA terms it as a success over time.

Why you think 46 could have been better planned? You consider poorly planned route? I understand loading is poor. So you earmark it as poorly planned. When they introduce a service to that area, they think that it could have snatched a viable crowd but it did not. It can equate to poor foresight. Planning is always something that is subjective. By the way, 46 brought some of my friends to the famous bedok 85 hawker centre which we are grateful for it. 46 connects many other stops of interest but just cannot get many crowds at this moment.

BSEP services means having the buses to support extra services. Many other bus services frequency have been increased through adding of buses. It is not random pick and give. It is consider current frequency and checking out the viability. Not random addition just to make you feel good. Cheers. Thanks.

carbikebus SG

Add: 117, 127

Badly designed routes: 116, 120, 121, 122, 973

M services such as 139M (exists even though 129 is introduced), 143M (too redundant), 53M (redundant, again!!), 43M (redundant, especially w/ 43 full fleet DD).

The only M variant that really makes sense today is 63M.

PPSS

Excessive buses on feeders

43M is to supplement 43 from Serangoon MRT towards Punggol should the latter stuck in jams..Its the passengers that complained to the authorities regarding this years back

carbikebus SG

What suprised me is GAS integrated both 43/43M duties hence you see full 43M DD fleet.I proposed that 43M/136 should be interlining duty.

bic_cherry SG

Just encourage greater bicycle use: people happy n healthy, n gahmen can save $$$ on unnecessary healthcare costs from lifestyle disease like cancer, diabetes, hypertension, heart attacks and obesity.

[Image: benefits-of-a-bicycle-go-car-less.jpg]

dupdup77 SG

Add: 117, 127

Badly designed routes: 116, 120, 121, 122, 973

M services such as 139M (exists even though 129 is introduced), 143M (too redundant), 53M (redundant, again!!), 43M (redundant, especially w/ 43 full fleet DD).

The only M variant that really makes sense today is 63M.

PPSS

Excessive buses on feeders

Hi mr busanalyser, why is 116 and 120 and 121 badly designed? 120 and 121 are designed due to feedback from residents.

120 --- old folks at telok blangah heights and drive request for a service to connect them to telok blangah MRT. The walk up slope is too much for them to handle and they feedback to the MP.

121 ---residents along Kim Tian area at the inner roads claim for a direct service to tiong Bahru mrt and other amenities along Jalan Bukit merah. They do not even have a service. Residents along telok blangah rise also feedback to MP as they only have 272. It is good that LTA introduced just 1 service to connect them. Or else bus fanatics will have criticized introducing of excessive services.

Let's note that LTA does not place expectations of bus fanatics as their utmost priority in introducing bus services. It is best to concentrate on residents welfare and needs where new bus services are introduced. Cheers. Thanks.

carbikebus SG

Then ride on the roads disregarding of paying road users?Sg is not a place to jollywell ride bicycle as you please unlike in Europe..Here everyone fighting for a space

gekpohboy SG

Actually, GCM helps to lower costs. The only disadvantage is that the initial cost is high; no choice.

carbikebus SG

Now passengers of PSR St 71 complains why is there only 1 bus svc?Later got 1 svc go there loadings not that high how ah?Not sustainable also?

carbikebus SG

Actually, GCM helps to lower costs. The only disadvantage is that the initial cost is high; no choice.

BCM also help to keep those complain kings and queens mouth shut because everytime say longer waiting time,Bus overcrowding,Why so many single decks and more out of the world request.Its true what,You want everything go as you want there is always a price for that.

You want this you want that then expect pay peanut only?You expect drivers wait for you,You expect on time,You expect everything where got so cheap?Else just accept the fact its PUBLIC Transport..

carbikebus SG

Expect buses to be as close to kerb then complain leg pain to climb up as if the public buses is using high floor coaches?Join bus and train industry then you know what nonsense is.

gekpohboy SG

It appears that the quote has been taken out of context. It's not about BSEP not sustainable or what, but about the fares. The fares cannot continue to be so low.

This is what Khaw Boon Wan actually said, and I quote, "Over the years, fares have not kept up with rising costs. Taxpayers have to subsidise more and more of the operating costs, especially as we have been raising service standards significantly. This is clearly not sustainable.", end quote.

Brace yourself. Fare hike is coming.

Be prepared to pay express bus fares on basic bus services like feeder and trunk.

carbikebus SG

Actually i do pity those working as bus planner in LTA,Never do bus route kena pressured by boss,Done kena criticised kaw2..đ¤Ł But i agreed that some route is actually redundant..Sgbuses is right,Trunk svc should be more direct not act as a feeder svc.

gekpohboy SG

and it's not just buses. trains also.

transport fares will increase, but hopefully, it's not to the extent that we have to pay the highest transport fares in the world for the same distance travelled.

carbikebus SG

I would rather have TV mobile rather than that USB port charger..At least pax can watch the lastest news while stuck in traffic jams.

« Previous Page Next Page »