Optimum Utilization of Double Deckers

TIB1112L SG

Revive

BusAnalayzer SG

Yes I had started this thread... but then after few posts.. it died its natural death... this same topic can be discussed in "loading level of buses" or respective DD threads on B9TL or Enviro 500. Just saying, coz I know like my thread died after few posts, this revived one will as well.

wsy1234 SG

as far as i see some DD service not really proper untilize. services jurong and tuas area have many DDs but again actually how many of them is fully untilize during non peck hours? runing around half empty or full empty. LTA should monitor those service which very inconsistence with loading of passengers. but one question ask those new buses really "save on desel" when operating full days?

carbikebus SG

As far as i see feeder svc like 240 & 334 is well utilise by commuters given the timings and distance they cover,Almost same scenario for Townlinks like 222 & 291 but sometimes pax still hesitate to move to upper deck due to number of stops theyre alighting..But 225?Ok peak hours only i saw a handful goes upstairs but most of the time almost all like to camp downstairs most probably due to the timings and short distance

carbikebus SG

If only there is a custom 12.8m DD with 3 doors and 2 staircase...

Marvel68 SG

Thats one problem with having double-deck buses deployed on feeder routes that are short in nature such as 225 where people refuse to go up and all squeeze at the lower deck. This is why SBST should have purchased bendy buses specially for feeder/Intra-Town use only while DDs should be restricted for trunks only. Double-deck buses are not very ideal for feeder/intra-town in my opinion. Articulated buses are far more suitable because naturally people tend to stay at the bottom for short journeys like you mentioned, saving the hassle of climbing up and down and as a result, DDs are not properly utilised for these type of services.

carbikebus SG

I was thinking something like the MAN A39 but with slightly shorter length,13.7m for most of the residential route is like overkill,Maybe they can design something like 12.8m at least?With centre and rear staircases and three doors its quite practical for feeder usage..

ButIAmAToilet SG

While I normally support the usage of DDs, I would prefer the usage of bendys over 2-stairs DDs for feeders. It does have faster boarding/alighting times than a standard DD, but comes at the cost of pax capacity. A bendy have both, but comes at the cost of space taken up by the bus. However, generally these feeders rarely serve roads that often have congestion.

It does not means that using 2-stairs DDs will not work though. If it is a service that constantly leave the terminal as a full bus (full upper deck), and have to choose between a 2-stairs DD and bendy, I personally prefer the bendy, but if the pax amount leaves at around 100+ pax, I will take the 2-stairs DD.

SexyMichael SG

i agree that people would stay on the lower deck than move to the upper deck should distances be short, but i would pose this question for some food for thought:

what if the first stop of the route is 15 minutes from the interchange, although the following stops are close to each other? would passengers still opt to stand or sit for these 15 minutes?

SMB128B SG

i agree that people would stay on the lower deck than move to the upper deck should distances be short, but i would pose this question for some food for thought:

what if the first stop of the route is 15 minutes from the interchange, although the following stops are close to each other? would passengers still opt to stand or sit for these 15 minutes?

I would worship you if you could gimme an example of that among all Singapore feeder/townlink routes.

SMB128B SG

222 not true.

DD upp deck mostly less than half filled

And 12.8m DD is not possible for many feeders and townlinks as they could not manouvre well in small roads (bendies are <12m long in the front so it's okay)

SBS3688Y SG

prob is many estates and its bus interchanges are too cramped to accomodate bendies feeders. for shorthaul ADDs feeders we end up most pax sticking at lower deck. so best is to deploy full single deck fleet with high freq. maybe pasir ris can use some feeder bendies when the bus routes are contracted out.

BusAnalayzer SG

If you dont have bendies for feeders.. u need dds irrespective of whether upper deck is more than half seated. Dds with half upper deck still take around 90-95 pax compared to sds that are already jam packed at 70 pax. We keep talking about sv 225. Please go to Bedok interchange and see for yourself how queue gets cleared when a DD comes compared to SD. Same goes for 181, 240, 241, 243, 291, 293, 334. In fact, some of these feeders need more dds (again given that there are no bendies). 225 just got a DD fleet add. If dds were that ineffective, 225 would have got SD fleet add. I do agree though that DD on 225W is not that useful, but on 225G is a must for AM heavy loading and also PM.

carbikebus SG

Thats because SBST doesnt have or want any bendy buses..With the Bedok cramped design do you think its feasible to use bendy for feeders or all single deckers with high freq?They bo bian,So to minimise pax complains or longer waiting times due to overcrowding on SDs they deploy DDs..If Bedok is underground and spacious i wouldnt mind all SDs with high freq..World is changing,Im not suprised if a manufacturers come out with a new 12.5m DDs with dual staircases and three doors..Anything is possible

BusAnalayzer SG

Agreed... but right now SBST does not have bendies... and current infrastructure doesn't support it... so no choice but to deploy DDs on SBST feeders.

Marvel68 SG

Yeah kinda forgot about that, ints could have been planned better back then if SBST were interested in using bendies.

SMB128B SG

Yeah kinda forgot about that, ints could have been planned better back then if SBST were interested in using bendies.

SBST stubborn mah...

Doesnt even know the routing pattern of SG bus routes is not for long haul...

sgbuses SG

222 not true.

DD upp deck mostly less than half filled

And 12.8m DD is not possible for many feeders and townlinks as they could not manouvre well in small roads (bendies are <12m long in the front so it's okay)

LTA is quite willing these days to perform the necessary road works to accomodate such changes.

sgbuses SG

I would worship you if you could gimme an example of that among all Singapore feeder/townlink routes.

I think he is referring to trunk routes where passengers can use it to travel long-distance between towns and short distances within the town as if it was a feeder service.

In Adelaide there is a solution to this problem - design the routes to pick up passengers who are traveling between towns and not within towns. Travel within towns should be restricted to feeder routes within towns.

This helps to shorten dwelling times of these routes. Such an idea faces resistance in Singapore due to perception of capacity wastage, but it is a proof of concept that works in other cities. However, you should not be surprised if any prospective foreign operators in the contracting model proposes such an idea.

JurongWestresident SG

Possible idea to optimise a Double Decker bus:

Reduce the number of seats (excluding priority seats) at the lower deck, replace them with cushion for commuters to lean against the side of the bus. This would enable more people to board the Double Decker bus.

If a commuter wants to sit, yet the seats at lower deck are occupied, he may walk to the upper deck and sit there.

Speaking of which, the indicator at the staircase which indicates the number of available seats at the upper deck is not always accurate. There was once I saw an indicator saying all the seats at upper deck were fully occupied, but when I went up, I saw many empty seats.