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.

Sbs6750E 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.

Ya lor, nowadays ppl got powerbank liao.

^tamago^ 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.

Sadly, that's the definition of a trunk service. literally a ćľć°´çˇă

lce SG

how can a cow manage the herd?

only noe how to cowpei cowbu.

AJQZC 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.

Might as well build newer MRT lines quickly. Then don't need so many new bus services. Short-term investment, long-term gain and operating cost reduction.

Plans for TEL / CRL / NCL could all be brought forward.

SMB128B SG

Sadly, that's the definition of a trunk service. literally a ćľć°´çˇă

No?! ćľć°´çˇ is defined as a long haul used for short haul travelling. Trunks can also be çšĺżŤçˇ, where long haul uses express routing that is more direct than the fastest alternative by train e.g. 23, 168. In HK that would be things like 215X, 74X, 796C.

array88 SG

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.

Yes every BSEP service has its own rationale and there's nothing wrong with that. But A LOT of these routes could have been planned better while still fulfilling these objectives.

For example, 120's and 121's routes are okay between Telok Blangah and their respective EWL stations, but the parts between NBR and Tiong Bahru / Redhill are totally useless. Same for 116's Yio Chu Kang Rd where it duplicates with so many services and picks up almost 0 pax. It could have been easily amended into Serangoon Ave 1 (the part where 315 is not there).

46 does provide unique connections, just that it DOES NOT need any DDs until DTL3 is ready. Also why the duplication with 291 when it's not helping 291 share its load from interchange?

gekpohboy SG

I thought ć°´ in this case means "money", and ćľć°´ means "lose money", or is it "passenger flow"? (ćł = äş = in this case, "water tap")

carbikebus SG

Might as well build newer MRT lines quickly. Then don't need so many new bus services. Short-term investment, long-term gain and operating cost reduction.

Plans for TEL / CRL / NCL could all be brought forward.

You think running a rail line is cheap?

carbikebus SG

In Singapore text,There is no Public First,Profit second sadly especially with the Ministars caliber..

gekpohboy SG

The Speaker of parliament Mdm Halimah Yacob just said, "although schemes are available ... unfortunate Singaporeans must be helped to avail of them, and thrown a lifeline if necessary. Help schemes must help".

To those working for a public transport company, don't worry, you will still enjoy free travel on buses and trains.

^tamago^ SG

ćľć°´çˇďźTrunk Routeďźćçĺ°äšĺŽ˘ćäšĺĺ¨ç¨ďźĺ¤§é¨ĺäšĺŽ˘ĺĺŞĺ¨ä¸éä¸ä¸čťďźčä¸ĺšžäšćŻĺĺˇ´ĺŁŤçŤé˝ććäšĺŽ˘ä¸č˝čťçĺˇ´ĺŁŤčˇŻçˇăéĺčŠćşćźĺĺˇ´ĺ¨1997ĺš´çĺĺˇ´5BçˇçčˇŻçˇĺä¸ç¨ąčŠ˛çˇçşăĺĺ˛¸ćľć°´çˇďźNorth Shore Lineďźăďźĺśäžćşç¸äżĄćŻčăćľć°´ä˝ćĽăďźĺłĺˇĽćĽä¸ä¸ĺĺˇĽĺşçąä¸ĺĺˇĽäşşč˛ č˛Źďźćéă

ć¤çčˇŻçˇéĺ¸¸ćŻćŠćçĺˇ´ĺŁŤçˇďźćčźéˇççźĺąćˇĺ˛ďźĺ éčˇŻçś˛çľĄäťćŞçźéćééĺä˝ľčˇŻçˇččĄçăé¨čéčˇŻçś˛çľĄćĽčś¨ĺŽĺďźĺ ä¸éľčˇŻćĺć´ĺźľďźĺ¤§ĺ¤ćľć°´çˇĺ°ä˝ĺˇ˛äťä¸ĺŚćďźĺŽ˘éĺ¤§ĺšä¸ćťďźçčłćĺ¤ć˘čˇŻçˇč˘Ťč˝ĺćĺčžŚăçžćéčžŚçčˇŻçˇĺ¤§ĺ¤äťĽçšĺżŤçˇçşä¸ťďźĺŠäšĺŽ˘ć´ĺżŤĺ°éçŽçĺ°ďźäşŚćĺŠĺˇ´ĺŁŤĺŹĺ¸ćčĄĄéľčˇŻçŤśçă

č˝ç¨ąĺžä¸ćŻćľć°´çˇçčˇŻçˇéĺ¸¸ĺąŹčˇ¨ĺçˇďźćĺçŻĺĺ¤§ăčˇŻçˇéˇä¸čżčż´ć˛ćďźçľĺ¤§é¨äť˝čˇŻćŽľçčłĺ¨ç¨ĺä¸ä¸ĺżŤéĺŹčˇŻăćľć°´çˇäťĽéçśćşĺçéčŚéčˇŻçşä¸ťďźäžĺŚčťĺ°źčŠŠéăĺ˝ćŚéďźďźčťçŤĺŻĺşŚćĽľéŤďźčżäšăçŤçŤĺăďźĺ ć¤ä¸ŚçĄä¸ĺä¸ťčŚçäšĺŽ˘çž¤ďźĺ¤§é¨äť˝äšĺŽ˘é˝ä¸ćäšĺĺ¨ç¨ďźćźçšĺżŤçˇččľˇĺć´ĺ¤ć¸ŻéľčˇŻçśŤĺç¨ĺžććłĺ°¤çă

http://hkbus.wikia.com/wiki/ćľć°´çˇ

gekpohboy SG

Come I translate for you.

Original text: "ćľć°´çˇďźTrunk Routeďźćçĺ°äšĺŽ˘ćäšĺĺ¨ç¨ďźĺ¤§é¨ĺäšĺŽ˘ĺĺŞĺ¨ä¸éä¸ä¸čťďźčä¸ĺšžäšćŻĺĺˇ´ĺŁŤçŤé˝ććäšĺŽ˘ä¸č˝čťçĺˇ´ĺŁŤčˇŻçˇă"

Translation: "Flow water suana (trunk route) means very few passengers take the entire route, most passengers only take along the route, and almost every bus stop have passengers board and alight from the bus."

err... maybe that's the situation at Hong Kong, but in Singapore, I don't think that's the case for most trunk routes.

SMB145B SG

Some of the trunks double up as feeders. This actually diminish the effectiveness of bus routes.

array88 SG

Some of the trunks double up as feeders. This actually diminish the effectiveness of bus routes.

Not necessarily so - they give people more connections besides just that one MRT / bus interchange. As long as the trunks come at good frequency.

TIB868X SG

Not necessarily so - they give people more connections besides just that one MRT / bus interchange. As long as the trunks come at good frequency.

Not necessarily so - the feeder merry-go-round sectors might need good frequency but other parts of the route might not need it. This leads to unoptimized use of resources.

SeeUThere 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.

Problem is these people don't want. Only want to kau bey this and that, this include one bus fan I know of.

SeeUThere SG

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..

These complain kings and queens can never shut up whether BCM or no BCM. They want good, cheap, if possible everything free. They think the world owed them a living, even lord shiva, tua pek kongs, angels, etc.. also owe them. I once ask how and who is going pay if everything is peanuts or free. His reply : tax the car owners and rich people. So simple ah? Retarded moron.

SMB128B SG

Here's why it's penitious to use the failure of NEL rationalisation as the reason to not launch any more rationalisation plans.

The problem with NEL rationalisation lies not with the rationalisation itself, but how it is carried out. By this I EXPLICITLY mean the routes that were being cut.

501 was chopped. 502 was chopped. All the peak period services, vital to relieve the currently overflowing crowds on the NEL, also got chopped. Even 81 and 111 are not spared. Basically the Northeast has nothing out to the city save for 80 and 107, both which are not meant for use to the city anyway. The Northeast is also effectively disconnected from the west in express bus connections.

This is why in times of breakdown, becoming more often as the system ages, the Northeast is thrown into a COMPLETE disaster. The shuttle effectively becomes the only viable alternative. Personally i feel the NEL performs the worst of all lines in terms of crowd management because of this.

Inadequate planning should not be used as a reason to denounce a concept as a whole. Bus rationalisation, if optimised, can be an essential tool to ensure the relevance of bus services in Singapore and maximise benefits for both the operators and the commuters.

It is plain misfortune that the NEL rationalisation has failed to achieve any of these outcomes.

AJQZC SG

Here's why it's penitious to use the failure of NEL rationalisation as the reason to not launch any more rationalisation plans.

The problem with NEL rationalisation lies not with the rationalisation itself, but how it is carried out. By this I EXPLICITLY mean the routes that were being cut.

It is plain misfortune that the NEL rationalisation has failed to achieve any of these outcomes.

My thoughts exactly. Can't wait for 500, if it's really going to be introduced.

Though I wonder if cutting CCL/DTL/TEL trains to 3/3/4 carriages respectively (resulting in reduction of capacity) could have led to the hesitation for further bus route rationalisations in the first place. Big mistakes IMO.

SMB128B SG

My thoughts exactly. Can't wait for 500, if it's really going to be introduced.

I personally feel that it is absurd to introduce short trains like these. CCL understandable since it was planned long long ago. But wtf were they thinking with the DTL and TEL?!

Clearly these are services that will have high catchment, and will even serve as TRUNK lines for some sectors. Simultaneously they kept harping on the white paper and whatever "car-free nation". No matter how many trains you inject the system will max out eventually. So spamming the line with trains is clearly not a solution. I think that it is irony at its best. LTA clearly has no bloody idea what it wants to achieve.

« Previous Page Next Page »