I know where 179A plies and where 199 does. Anyway, I don't want
to argue with you. For improving scheduling of 179A, you want to
disrupt scheduling of 199.
The fact is 179 is very important in the morning peak because of
the load at Pioneer. Sometimes 2 back to back DDs are needed to
clear it.
Please go to Pioneer and watch the loading for yourself.
Ofcourse, I do agree that the bus comes 50-60 pax already in it
when it reaches Pioneer. I have calculated pax entering each bus of
179 at Pioneer. At least 40-50 pax everytime.
There must be a good reason why SBST plies 179 more than 179A.
It is not stupid. If you look at Boon Lay - 241, 243, JIS services
are all managed with good frequency at Boon Lay.
I think you dun get it... The problem is 179A underoperating buses
even though there's no issue with 179... The 199's comparison is
the actual travelling time... Let me say again... The AM peak load
at Boon Lay is much heavier than Pioneer during the peak within
peak belt. Go inside BNL and take a look. Furthermore, LTA has
alrdy told me like it or not, the priority external boarding pt
would be Boon Lay... 2 bus back to back??? Did you see 179A's queue
during the peak within peak? Obviously not... There's also
backlog... So what are you trying to prove? Anyway, check the
e-guide of 179A's scheduled headways... 2 - 4 mins, 179 is 3 - 6
mins. Furthermore, if I tell you bus 506 instead of 20 mins
headways, it becomes 30 mins daily w/o any traffic jam... is it
acceptable? Same goes to 179A's stiuplated freq... Guess you're the
one twisting everything... say because of demand bla bla bla, 179A
is allowed to underoperate from the stipulated freq... If LTA reads
this, I dunno what's next..