haizz, i see something abt this:
LTA split up long routes = more transfers = more money must pay
= more confusion = more complaints.
to me, splitting up SHOULD not be necessary
what...seriously, they call this promoting public transportation, i
dont think so. 'improve not jeopardise'. i feel the current routes
are good enough...
- 1, because more money side is going to change soon, the fare
structure is likely to have a big revamp, just that they should
have announce the new fare structure before announcing such
intentions.
This is an example of satisifed on current situation and did not
bother to improve on existing products. Sigh......
Do you think that the current service is perfect? No, I dont
think so. So in fact I am happy to hear about changes, and that has
nothing to do with my political affliation.
But my main concern is they should not split for the sake of
split. Those buses that are ultra long but mainly expressway should
have remain as it is.
I understand the fellow forumers concerned about the
profitiblity and even if initally it looks cheaper fares (Or the
same), but in the end shorter routes = profit not as before because
a bus operator in per passenger theory is that a need to operate 2
buses or more (from 2 or more services) in order to reach a ultra
long destination (Each passenger got different destinations and so
you roughly get my idea) compared to 1 if the "direct service" are
cutted down or axed.
However, the reason why I put "direct service" is that these
services are direct as in no transfer involved and one can sleep in
the bus peacefully etc but consider this:
Service 81, Tampines, Pasir Ris, Serangoon. Seriously, do you
think this way is direct towards Serangoon? Maybe for Tampines -
Pasir Ris or Pasir Ris - Serangoon is direct.
I also understand that earlier someone pointed out that more new
services = need of more bus berths in the interchanges despite the
number of bus plying in a shorter route is likely to be reduced, in
order to ply the other new services, and of course with the
continuous buying of new buses is adding the problem as well which
was stated of a formula of headway and such, and I tried to
understand it as more new services with different frequencies due
to different level of demands = more of the time where the buses
coming in and out of the interchange instead of the current system
where more buses are outside of the interchanges and thus = need of
more berths to cater the services and it can be a problem as
well.
Maybe, someone should have created a more complete post
regarding the proposed amendment's pros and cons, compared to
current system pros and cons, if possible, just like other
forumers, compare with their suggested alternatives based on their
observation in anywhere else, such as Japan but not limited to. And
from there, we can see the pros and cons of each approach and maybe
if possible, suggest to LTA if this amendments is so suck...
