LTA Central Planning (Phase I) – Splitting ultra-long routes

last SG · 2010-03-27T22:14:40+00:00

*sigh* what to do? this is singapore, where everything is rising anyway, hope 135 wont be affected, for now

^tamago^ SG

but 43 doesnt go past VS, so can't really duplicate

VS is only a branch away from Sv 43 and demand is a small proportion of commuters travelling through the Paya Lebar-Tg Katong sector. So, cut Sv 43 and make people transfer to Sv 76 or 135 to VS! Or maybe cut Sv 76 as well, and everyone pack onto a more frequent Sv 135 that brings everybody down to Marine Parade Rd.

To top it up, we can extend Sv135 to Upp East Coast direct, since people can still take Sv 36 or Sv 55 into Siglap Rd, or Sv 31 or Sv 196 to access VS from Marine Parade Rd itself.

Anyway, that's just a idealized example of how the situation might turn out to be...

One Harmonius Blend SG

VS is only a branch away from 43 and demand is a small proportion of commuters travelling through the Paya Lebar-Tg Katong sector. So, cut 43 and make people transfer to 76 or 135 to VS! Or maybe cut 76 as well, and everyone pack onto a more frequent 135 that brings everybody down to Marine Parade Rd and Upp East Coast.

Anyway, that's just a idealized example of how the situation might turn out to be...

took 76 before recently, so shouldn't have any effect though, never took 43, so don't know much

135 will give my comments once i have taken it

oh, 135 ending at UEC? wouldn't it cut one less bus direct to AMK from VS?

^tamago^ SG

took 76 before recently, so shouldn't have any effect though, never took 43, so don't know much

135 will give my comments once i have taken it

oh, 135 ending at UEC? wouldn't it cut one less bus direct to AMK from VS?

when there is no transfer penalty, nobody owes you a direct bus. it'll be more efficient if you can gather a bus load of people feeding into VS like they feed into Marine Parade, maybe you'll have a point. if not, transfer under throughfare regime so all of you can pack onto a better utilised Sv 36 or Sv 55 bus. that seems to be the idea they're selling...

service_238 SG

From the commuters pov, if the authorities want to sell the idea of transferring, the bus you are transferring to has to be reliable, on time, and have a variety of choices transferring.

Example is I stay at Henderson Rd Blk 116. I have 2 choices to get to Raffles Place/Shenton Way. First is i cross road take 16/851 to Tiong Bahru MRT for a train down to Tg Pagar or Raffles Place. Another is I take 145 down to Harbourfront Ctr and change bus.

Assuming that I only have the 145 option and I'm not working near Tg Pagar MRT (cos you can walk from Tg Pagar Rd over if you work near there and 145 would be deemed as a direct service). The services i can transfer to would be 10 57 97 100 131. If this option holds true after LTA Ctrl Planning, it would be successful. I have 5 services to choose from and the chances of missing all 5 is only... say 7%?

Now that LTA Bus Planning steps in. Assuming the following of the 5 routes were amended:
10 cut short to terminate at Shenton Way
57 got amended to ply Kg Bahru Rd, Neil Rd and Cantonment Rd
97 cut short to terminate at HarbourFront
131 got diverted to serve MBS via Marina Bay MRT.
You are left with 100. During peak hours if 100 comes within 10min and you didnt miss the bus and traffic is pretty normal, you will still benefit. However, if its off peak hours, and 100 comes every 12-15min, and just so happen the 145 timing never connects to 100, this transferring system would be flawed as your waiting time might be longer than your journey time. If the authorities are looking at peak period its likely that many commuters will benefit. If looking at off peak when demand is lower, there needs to be a timely connection for services at bus stop hubs.

Under this option the variety of choices is greatly reduced. How to transfer efficiently?

Another problem with more services around is the lack of parking space in the up and coming interchanges. But that I think we should not go into it as LTA themselves designed the interchange so you can say they are digging their own grave for it.

TIB1232Z SG

From the commuters pov, if the authorities want to sell the idea of transferring, the bus you are transferring to has to be reliable, on time, and have a variety of choices transferring.

Under this option the variety of choices is greatly reduced. How to transfer efficiently?

I cannot remember the number of times my 168 just nice misses 39 at Jalan Kayu bus stop and the next 39 is like 17 mins away.

iRIS is only good when the information they provide is accurate and don't have so many glitches from the IDFC. I can easily count at least 250 instances when I sent a SMS to iRIS and the next bus arrival timing as shown on the reply doesn't tally with reality. And I'm not talking about a 1-2 mins. E.g. iRIS says 3 mins but the bus arrives only after 10 mins. If the IDFC is deemed not very reliable then it's time to explore another alternative for the iRIS concept to apply on.

Options currently look better than reliability. I always wait for less than 5 mins for a bus home from school, because there are 3 options to choose from.

Samuel Lee SG

I think this issue had been pointed out by many fellow forumer. But look things in this way:

1: A bus interchange typically has 15 to 20 services, while the most at Boon Lay with 31 services inclusive of feeder bus.

Now, each bus service usually comes at about 10mins, peak hours is less and off peak time is somewhat more than 10 or so.

Assuming that the waiting frequency had not been cut down drastically, such as off peak hours is every 5 ~ 7 mins per bus, and peak hours is no more than 4 minutes etc (Like MRT) , with a shorter route means less bus need to ply on the service.

Eg: Service 21 is known to have about 29 bus to ply if I did not remember wrongly. If that is shorten, it will not need that much bus, maybe can reduce to no less than 15 bus, and the other no more than 14 bus can be deployed to the new service.

With a less number of bus plying on a particular route, then a usual interchange with 3 ~ 5 bus bays (For the one need reversing one, example: 30 on Bedok Interchange OR 31 in Toa Payoh, but not Tampines) can be reduced to 2 and the other few can be used for other services. The similar concept can be applied to other side where having 3 buses or slightly more per "Bus berth / Stop" which the bus have already reversed itself from the centre then come and pick people up. Then, the interchange will be as it is without affecting much apart of more destos needed.

^tamago^ SG

I think this issue had been pointed out by many fellow forumer. But look things in this way:

1: A bus interchange typically has 15 to 20 services, while the most at Boon Lay with 31 services inclusive of feeder bus.

Now, each bus service usually comes at about 10mins, peak hours is less and off peak time is somewhat more than 10 or so.

as long as drivers need to park his driver somewhere, he needs a lot. additional routes mean more lots required as more buses need to park, unless you convert all of them to loop service, which defeats the purpose of shortening it in the first place. it'll be worse when their mealbreaks come. can you eat fast enough before the next guy comes? headway will be very huge then. :(

of course, if you're still not convinced, sign up as a timetable scheduler in SBST or SMRT (but SMRT interchanges no parking issues) and try to produce schedules not requiring more than 1 lot for a service at each end (or 2 lots for a long route with jumpbus).

sawtooth berths manage lots in a better manner by pooling them, jumpbus can reduce lots usage during mealbreak hours, but splitting services will not.

sgbuses SG

The only practical way to have throughfare regime is the Zonal system.

For the best example, try Rapid KL's bus system.

Essentially you pay one basic fare that gives you the whole day's worth of unlimited travel on the zones that you pay for the one whole day.

If you go beyond/via CBD zone, pay extra. If you use express service, pay extra. It's a bit like the current way Nite Owl is charging.

vicamour SG

The legacy and pride of the 1996 White Paper era is gone...

Gonna agree. Ironically I still have a copy.

heck w/ car issue. Even w/ green car, question comes how much cars can we have on the road? If there's jam the whole day, how 'green' is it?

As for cars vs public tpt, when u dun have space how is it u're going to get urself comfortable vs the bus or MRT when e road is jammed? It's like self denial. If you were to look at cities like KL, they dun have efficient LRT or bus and the roads are jammed, so how? tbh, road tax is dirt cheap there and petrol has to be subsidised, do they've $$ for flyover works or build more LRT lines?

As for Hong Kong is because from the British times they've focused on it. Ironically did the British care for our infrastructure? Dun forget it was only after indepedence that we began cleaning everything up. Though I'll say the prev recent tpt mini star did no favour w/ their policy to improve anything as they allowed more ppl in.

Over there in HK, you need to prove u've a parking lot before u can even own a car.

So the root of the problem:

This city is too overcrowded, stop this population growth and sprunce up the current infrastruture. As simple as that. Everyday before and after work, buses and MRTs are fully packed with people, traffic jams, etc. If this is a scenario of what Singapore is going to be, where some people up there tell us to bear with all these overcrowding, sooner or later, you will see more frustrations within people using the transport system in future. And this is just about the transport system, there are so many aspects that things here are getting frustrating because of this unnecessary overcrowding.

I rather get jammed within my own space in a car rather than get squeezed and jammed within packed bodies, especially when you are tired and need your own private space after work. Why must I be punished to stand and squeeze with so many people where the public transport structure is so screwed up?

If you want to talk about history, I am gladly appreciate what was done in the 1970s and 1980s to build up Singapore as a strong and prosperous country. However the story is different after the 21st century.

Please don't compare a fish and a durain because you are simply comparing two different things althogether. Singapore aims to have a world class transport system, but Malaysia has no intentions of becoming one, even as of the near future. If you want to compare, please compare those transport sysytems in the first world countries. As I have said earlier, if Hong Kong can provide a truly world class public transport system, then private transport there is not an issue. Unlike here, which claims to be "so called".

To top it up, we can extend Sv135 to Upp East Coast direct, since people can still take Sv 36 or Sv 55 into Siglap Rd, or Sv 31 or Sv 196 to access VS from Marine Parade Rd itself.

Anyway, that's just a idealized example of how the situation might turn out to be...

An idea and what are actually implemented is 2 different things. Based on the way they are implementing things, I wonder how the actual thing will take into effect properly.

Let's wait and see.

SBS7382C SG

sawtooth berths manage lots in a better manner by pooling them, jumpbus can reduce lots usage during mealbreak hours, but splitting services will not.

jumpbus would be good if implemented into every service...

maybe LTA would want services to terminate at different MRT stations instead to reduce the overcrowding at interchange like some services that terminate a bedok can stop at kembangan...its just a thought...

^tamago^ SG

An idea and what are actually implemented is 2 different things. Based on the way they are implementing things, I wonder how the actual thing will take into effect properly.

Let's wait and see.

sure, though I'm sure none of what I had proposed is being considered.

zenden9 SG

SBS and SMRT are doing smart think by chopping off the long distance bus. less bus on road and more space for motorist. Since I seldom take bus, serve those people who like to take bus. Hahaha....

^tamago^ SG

SBS and SMRT are doing smart think by chopping off the long distance bus. less bus on road and more space for motorist. Since I seldom take bus, serve those people who like to take bus. Hahaha....

it's splitting not chopping. fleet size remains, just that resources are reallocated.

tanjun SG

it's splitting not chopping. fleet size remains, just that resources are reallocated.

It is unclear if a direct spilt is made onto existing long bus routes or a certain "overlapping" route will be allowed during the spilt. If the latter option is taken, the resources consumed will actually be more and wasted in the overlapping.

^tamago^ SG

case-by-case. some routes will need more buses, and certainly for overlapping splits like you've said. other routes will require less as they're cutback due to duplication.

for Phase I it does appear that fleet requirement will increase for most of the proposed services.

Samuel Lee SG

sawtooth berths manage lots in a better manner by pooling them, jumpbus can reduce lots usage during mealbreak hours, but splitting services will not.

True enough, I am not sure of this anyway, how to sign up as a timetable scheduler? Maybe I just simply thought of less amount of bus plying a particular route because it is shorten and there is no need to have the same amount of bus as before, which has a longer route distance in order to maintain the frequency = less use of number of berths which can be channelled into other services.

Put it in this way, would one need like 8 buses to ply on Service 354? Do you think that plying 8 buses on Service 48 is enough? Maybe not so fair because one is loop and the other is 2 directional inter town service. But the total distance tells a lot.

service_238 SG

overlapping portion might see the same resources allocated. frequency and demand of the splitted portion will be a key factor here.

Example say i cut 147 into 2 - Hougang to New Bridge Rd and Clementi to Sungei Rd(Loop). Current frequency is 7-9min peak using 33 buses. If its split up the former route may still retain the frequency of 7-9min using 18-20 buses. Current AM Peak run time is 76min to NBR and 65min to Hougang.

The other portion, where demand is lower, can still operate at 10min freq (due to QoS) with 13 buses. Current run time is 58min to Clementi and 60min to Sungei Rd. If not bounded by QoS 11 buses will do.

Whether resources will remain the same, reduce or added also depends on the regulations that the bus service needs to fulfill also.

tanjun SG

I personally think that the authorities should really collect feedbacks or even observe the demand patterns before they really make the cut.

Take for example, if 147 is going to make the cut, where do you make the cut?

New Bridge Road terminal or Queen Street terminal or even Serangoon Interchange as proposed.

For this route, it is sure to affect many people especially the elderly.

^tamago^ SG

True enough, I am not sure of this anyway, how to sign up as a timetable scheduler? Maybe I just simply thought of less amount of bus plying a particular route because it is shorter and there is no need to have the same amount of bus as before, which has a longer route distance in order to maintain the frequency = less use of number of berths which can be channelled into other services.

join when there's an opening.

even a one-bus service like 408 and 409 need 1 lot each during normal breaks, and 2 lots each (technically if you count crossover bus) during mealbreaks.

lot usage is inversly proportional to headway. if buses come back frequently you'll need more bays to keep them even if they're going out quickly, as buses cannot depart on-time (the need to pick up passengers, wait for chance to reverse etc).

if service 354 needs only 27 mins (example) to complete a trip & 5 mins (example) to rest, 8 buses will give you 4 mins headway. does the demand for the service warrant 4-min headways?

Sv 48 or Sv 354, what counts is roundtrip running time plus average/indicative layovers.

TIB1224Y SG

Terence, I don't think rail lines can achieve the kind of dominance as people are less willing to walk further in the tropical climate. Subways need to be perceived as efficient and regular; a 6-minute off-peak headway is like Kaohsiung Metro, a three-car two-line system relegated for "exceptional" users who do not yet have the capability to commute by motorcycles or scooters.

That is why the hub-spoke system is effective in cities like Tokyo and European ones, because their rail network is fast, efficient and reliable.

Although the local ones are fast, slightly reliable, but not too efficient. Hub damaged, spoke sure gets affected. The hub needs to be strengthened before the spokes can be placed.

Why Tokyo so 'few' buses (which is not really few, there are other railway companies running bus routes like Keio, Keisei, Keikyu and Kokusai Kyogo) is mainly due to the effective rail network. It was once at over-saturation point (90s to mid 00s), presently just able to cope during rush hours.

That is why they can afford sparse buses, Alan knows this as well haha~

Oh and there goes my 1000th post, spending an average of 1000 minutes posting in this forum... Haha~

« Previous Page Next Page »