Loading level on buses

last SG · 2014-02-18T00:10:26+00:00

11-4 pax from Lor 1,Stadium 3 alight then 1 last Stadium stop 7 pax,Sims before terminal 1 boarding all the way to Lor 1Ooh la la...

dupdup77 SG

I do know that there are few people who do use the service. I also spotted some 7 people board at Edgefield Plains to get down at Punggol Plaza. But to be honest the rational for extension of 386 IMO is different.

If having door step stop is what it is then the end flats on Edgefield and Edgedale plains should have had a service long back, as the walk to LRT is quite far.

LTA had promised a new service in Punggol. There was a strong rumor of a Punggol / Tampines service back then. Somehow the plans fell through maybe bcoz of limited slots at Tampines Int. As a quick fix, IMO 386 was extended. I feel 386 route might get amended at a later date to serve Waterway flats at Edgedale plains end when they will be ready in Q2 2016. Once that happens 386 loading will sore.

Hi mr busanalayser, it won't be extended. Another new feeder service will have to come in. If you extend sbs 386 again for edgedale plains near waterway flats to go direct to mrt/bus interchange, then the bus stop outside Greendale primary school will be invalidated. There will be no bus service at this stop. Maybe even the two stops at horizon primary school and opposite horizon primary school will also have no bus. It is very unlikely that LTA will build 3 bus stops for sbs 386 and then remove the bus service and leave the 3 bus stops 'a white elephant'.

Moreover, LTA mindset is if once a bus service is amended, it will definitely introduce another service for an alternative method if it takes away that bus service for that route. Cheers. Thanks.

array88 SG

Moreover, LTA mindset is if once a bus service is amended, it will definitely introduce another service for an alternative method if it takes away that bus service for that route. Cheers. Thanks.

In the event thay 386 really gets amended and skips Edgedale Plains, it's not a bad idea to introduce a trunk service from Punggol Int that plys Punggol Place, Punggol Dr, Edgedale Plains, Punggol Field before going to somewhere else. Like 136 style albeit winding. I have witnessed > 10 pax taking 136 at Edgefield Plains just to transfer at Punggol Rd (after TPE mainly), so this kind of doorstep services do make sense.

FYI: There are a lot of bus stops getting abandoned after the only service plying there was amended or withdrawn. Like the bus stop at Punggol Place where 82 used to call at (and ridiculously it's refurbished). And the Mount Faber bus stops for 409.

array88 SG

If having door step stop is what it is then the end flats on Edgefield and Edgedale plains should have had a service long back, as the walk to LRT is quite far.

Firstly, 386 extension is not a replacement for 164. 386 was extended before 164 rumour came in. It was just when 164 failed to introduce then LTA decided to use 386 as a 'new' service.

Secondly, I believe 386 extension is not only to provide doorstep service for Edgedale Plains. It should be for Waterway residents to go to Punggol East Plaza. Maybe there eere complaints from residents or MP pressure.

BusAnalayzer SG

386 can look like:

386G:

Punggol Interchange > Punggol Central > Edgefield Plains end > Punggol Dr > Edgedale Plains end > Punggol East > Punggol Field > Punggol Interchange

386W:

Punggol Interchange > Punggol Field > Punggol East > Punggol Central > Edgedale Plains end > Punggol Dr > Edgefield Plains end > Punggol Central > Punggol Interchange

* This way all of the 3 main avenues of Punggol are connected with Waterway flats. Only stop that will get missed is one on Edgedale Plains before Punggol Field where 386 plies uni-directional.

dupdup77 SG

Hi mr array88, that bus stop at Punggol place is not abandoned. It still has number 6N. Bus stops along edgedale plains will never be abandoned because they are very near HDB flats and there is demand for bus services. 409 case is totally different. Cheers. Thanks.

dupdup77 SG

386 can look like:

386G:

Punggol Interchange > Punggol Central > Edgefield Plains end > Punggol Dr > Edgedale Plains end > Punggol East > Punggol Field > Punggol Interchange

386W:

Punggol Interchange > Punggol Field > Punggol East > Punggol Central > Edgedale Plains end > Punggol Dr > Edgefield Plains end > Punggol Central > Punggol Interchange

* This way all of the 3 main avenues of Punggol are connected with Waterway flats. Only stop that will get missed is one on Edgedale Plains before Punggol Field where 386 plies uni-directional.

Hi mr busanalyser, good that you think for the benefit of all. However the above is confusing. We prefer another bus service 387 to direct connect residents at edgedale plains end to mrt. No need for the 386G and 386W which make it so confusing. Cheers. Thanks.

Path Light SG

Service 334's loading is high, 80-100 passengers, packed with only 3 to 9 seats remaining

23ispolo SG

Took SMB3593X on 985 today from CCK to BBT (Opp Blk 628), with the trip during PM peak (6p.m. to 6.20p.m.). Throughout my trip, I only saw at most 20 - 25 people onboard the DD.

When I saw the buses in the opposite direction, I saw most of them (all were OCs and MANs) were packed to the brim with many standees, except one bus (SMB109G) which bunched up behind a packed OC (SMB22Y) at Bukit Batok Driving Centre (around 6.11p.m.). The buses behind the relatively empty bus were all full capacity, though many people did get off at BBT central (Blk 628, towards CCK).

I think that the BSEP DD slots should be reshuffled so that the full capacity of the DDs can be used for the heavy loading from Lor 1 Geylang to CCK during PM peak (around 6p.m.). I understand why the SDs were upgraded to DDs, but the DDs should be deployed at the right timings to handle the loadings properly and efficiently.

Sequence (towards CCK): SMB1415R (relatively empty, Teck Whye Drive) > SMB22Y (full, BBT Driving Centre) > SMB109G (only 2 - 3 passengers) > SMB127D (full, BBT West Ave 2) > SMB1630K (full, BBT central)

BusAnalayzer SG

Took SMB3593X on 985 today from CCK to BBT (Opp Blk 628), with the trip during PM peak (6p.m. to 6.20p.m.). Throughout my trip, I only saw at most 20 - 25 people onboard the DD.

Only 1/3 DDs is on a good slot.. the one you took is the one I see coming back to Lor 1 around 7.15pm I guess. This one usually leaves Lor 1 around 4.30pm and next trip is around 7.30pm.

SMRT/LTA did the same when 972 was launched with 3 DDs out of its fleet of 15 DDs back then... First bus did Orchard loop around 5pm with all 3 DDs deployed back to back... By 530pm all 3 DDs have already crossed Orchard (not its peak time)... but then they come back again around 730pm and 930pm to do their next trips... So basically LTA/SMRT just maximised the DDs that were deployed... though they didn't really do the 5.30-7pm super peak time. All DD deployment was outside of the peak hours.

I see it is the same case with 985 currently bcoz there are 2 DDs that leave CCK around 5.30pm and 6pm, while I thought it would have made sense to make these 3 depart from Lor 1 between 5.30 and 6.30pm.

23ispolo SG

Only 1/3 DDs is on a good slot.. the one you took is the one I see coming back to Lor 1 around 7.15pm I guess. This one usually leaves Lor 1 around 4.30pm and next trip is around 7.30pm.

I caught the 6p.m. trip from CCK yesterday... I remember that the 2 ex-BSEP SDs used to leave Lor 1 Ter at around 5 - 5.30p.m. (back to back), but it seems that after they upgraded to DDs, they changed the timings of the BSEP slots. I suspect that the buses leaving Lor 1 Ter at around 5 - 5.30p.m. are now regular SDs... Wonder why they changed the timings after upgrading to DDs?

carbikebus SG

KJDEP deploy the 3 DDs at wrong timings,SDs are all packed during PM peak.Its best if KJDEP can deploy one more DD.2 from Lor 1 and 2 from CCK.Meanwhile 961 really need few more DDs.972 on the other hand wasted resource.Can cut 1 DD and deployed to 190.

BusAnalayzer SG

I think 961 is doing okay... The route is so long that by the time it starts in peak, it is already off-peak during its journey... 961 also has many other options along its way, so IMO fleet is doing okay.

972 is doing perfect with 24 DDs... operating at frequency of 04-05 mins... if there is no bunching, each bus easily gets 60-70 pax... can expect this only to increase with the new flats in Senja/Segar opened this quarter.

190 needs to cut 2 buses... which should be SDs.. around 10-12 SDs are spammed on sv 190... totally uneccessary... frequency right now is operating at 03-04 mins... managing loading very well... will say DDs take around 80-90 pax peak on each bus... a tad higher than 190

700 can lose its 2 bendies... totally not required... loading on 700 still better during AM but PM has lost loading considerably... Most buses have around 50-60 peak loading.

985 should be a fleet of 6 DDs, 10 SDs... and for GOD sake deploy the DDs at the right time, which SMRT is not doing right now.

carbikebus SG

Must let commuters complain or stomp then 985 will have 6 DDs just like 190 and 966 cases last time

Path Light SG

187 should have 18 DD

proudtobeme SG

i do load check for 969 at tamp int on tue. sorry late but i access this site only on holiday and weekend.

so from 6pm to 745pm i observe bus come 6min or 9 min. not more gap than 9 min. queue of 969 bus at rare part of int. at any time got 4 bus of 969 standing with eds on.

observe all bus go good. dd go with 90 odd peop. bendy go with 80 odd peop and man go with 60 peop with queue always there.

with dd or bendy queue small for those wan seat. for man sd queue long since peop cannot enter.

so i propose 969 be full fleet dd as every bus go full from tamp.

carbikebus SG

I agreed,969 should be full DDs or at least with just a few OCs if Wldep takes in the buses.

For full DDs it will be 20 E500s and 4 A95s and for other option is

16 E500s,4 A95s and 5 OC500LEs.969A to be done by Amdep 67 split shift buses.

BusAnalayzer SG

I agreed,969 should be full DDs or at least with just a few OCs if Wldep takes in the buses.

For full DDs it will be 20 E500s and 4 A95s and for other option is

16 E500s,4 A95s and 5 OC500LEs.969A to be done by Amdep 67 split shift buses.

Cannot agree more. If 161/168 can have full fleet DD... 969 surely can. I hope it happens within the next 1 year.

carbikebus SG

Cannot agree more. If 161/168 can have full fleet DD... 969 surely can. I hope it happens within the next 1 year.

Can,With 9 service already freed up,They can jollywell make it happen together with service 190 and service 960.

BusAnalayzer SG

Another DD deployment mess up by SMRT (961)

Evening peak DD on sv 961 leaves Lor 1 Geylang at 18.40 hours. It is such a miss, because by the time it reaches Jalan Bukit Merah it is already 19.15-19.30 hours.. and the peak time rush at Bukit Merah is already gone. Imagine it will reach Mandai industrial estate only by 20.15-20.30 hours as the total run time for sv 961 is 2 and 1/2 hours one way.

So basically the DD is waste throughout the route.

There is an earlier DD that leaves Lor 1 Geylang at 16.45 hours... which is good because it will reach Bukit Merah by 17.30 hours and Mandai by 18.15 hours. So gets peak in both loading areas.

So 1 DD is in a proper time, the other one is totally misplaced and is timed for peak from Woodlands to Lor 1 which I am sure does not fetch DD worthy loading.

I believe the DD should leave Lor 1 between 17.00 and 17.30 hours to make best use of it.

TIB429E SG

700 can lose its 2 bendies... totally not required... loading on 700 still better during AM but PM has lost loading considerably... Most buses have around 50-60 peak loading.

985 should be a fleet of 6 DDs, 10 SDs... and for GOD sake deploy the DDs at the right time, which SMRT is not doing right now.

972 have bunching ; happened to seen it. But both bus loading quite good(Front have higher one).

190 to stay as it is, remove 2 or more SDs back-to-back and spread the SDs all around(As back-up).

« Previous Page Next Page »