Loading level on buses (Part 2)
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
61 from 4 O405G,To 2 O405G,To 3 DD & 1 O405G and now got 5 DD you call downgrade?
61 have more than 4 bendies when CCL just opened. I was talking about when it just opened not now. Now they upgrade the slots. Even 700 from 2 DD to 1 DD to 4 DD and 0 bendies -
Originally posted by TIB 585L:
61 have more than 4 bendies when CCL just opened. I was talking about when it just opened not now. Now they upgrade the slots. Even 700 from 2 DD to 1 DD to 4 DD and 0 bendiesJialat la
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr carbikebus, the trend now is new bus services. Not really into rationalization. I believe rationalization is only last resort. When I see people even talking about rationalization for popular services here, I am shocked. Cheers. Thanks.
Isn't it in both LTA and the bus companies' interest to utilize their resources optimally to reduce operation cost wastage? Putting less resources / modifying / withdrawing an unpopular route such that the saved resources can be better utilized elsewhere (such as new routes or those in need of fleet adds)? That's the entire purpose of service rationalization, isn't it?
Granted, the main obstacle to that would be PR and complaints from commuters, but economically it makes perfect sense to do so.
(When done properly, all alternatives should be taken care of that would reduce inconveniences to existing travel patterns to the minimum. )
(Edit: My bad, didn't see that you were referring to popular services. But the general idea for rationalization still holds.)
-
Originally posted by AJQZC:
Isn't it in both LTA and the bus companies' interest to utilize their resources optimally to reduce operation cost wastage? Putting less resources / modifying / withdrawing an unpopular route such that the saved resources can be better utilized elsewhere (such as new routes or those in need of fleet adds)? That's the entire purpose of service rationalization, isn't it?
Granted, the main obstacle to that would be PR and complaints from commuters, but economically it makes perfect sense to do so.
(When done properly, all alternatives should be taken care of that would reduce inconveniences to existing travel patterns to the minimum. )
(Edit: My bad, didn't see that you were referring to popular services. But the general idea for rationalization still holds.)
Hi mr AJQZC, yes your last statement says it all. By the way, 961 is never a good candidate to start rationalize with. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by AJQZC:
Loading increased throughout last year? Seems it wasn't so high in demand around the same time last year.
I wonder if the introduction of 973 suggest that they're considering making 700 a peak hour service and merging it with 971E...
Don't know and don't see the point of 973 if they are keeping 700. But 700 still seems to have good loading and in fact v good loading b/w condos at Dunearn and Scotts/Orchard. Loading drops off at Whitley towards BPJ.
-
Originally posted by AJQZC:
Isn't it in both LTA and the bus companies' interest to utilize their resources optimally to reduce operation cost wastage? Putting less resources / modifying / withdrawing an unpopular route such that the saved resources can be better utilized elsewhere (such as new routes or those in need of fleet adds)? That's the entire purpose of service rationalization, isn't it?
Granted, the main obstacle to that would be PR and complaints from commuters, but economically it makes perfect sense to do so.
(When done properly, all alternatives should be taken care of that would reduce inconveniences to existing travel patterns to the minimum. )
(Edit: My bad, didn't see that you were referring to popular services. But the general idea for rationalization still holds.)
What do you classify as popular services?
And which services you would regard as not popular?
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
But 700 still seems to have good loading and in fact v good loading b/w condos at Dunearn and Scotts/Orchard.
hmmm there's 171 for that i believe
-
Originally posted by SMB5007J:
hmmm there's 171 for that i believe
Isn't it rumored that 171 will be cut too?
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr AJQZC, yes your last statement says it all. By the way, 961 is never a good candidate to start rationalize with. Cheers. Thanks.
I know got some people who take 961 from Bukit Merah all the way to Woodlands where is no direct MRT connection to it -
After taking 700, I decided to take 171 from Stamford St.
Time: 17.30
Stamford St -- 05 (0/2), 07 (-1/3), 09 (-1/3)
Dhoby Ghaut MRT -- 18 (-3/12)
Penang Road -- 21 (0/3)
Somerset MRT -- 25 (0/5)
Orchard Turn -- 28 (0/3), 31 (0/3)
Scotts Road -- 38 (-4/11), 41 (0/3), 48 (-2/9) Newton MRT
Dunearn/Bukit Timah Road -- 47 (-4/3), 46 (-3/2), 26 (-22/2) notice the huge alighting at this particular stop, 26 (-2/2), 24 (-2/0) Stevens MRT, 22 (-2/0), 25 (0/3), 22 (-5/2) Botanic Gardens MRT, 22 (-2/2), 22 (0/0), 22 (0/0) TTK MRT, 24 (-1/3), 20 (-6/2), 22 (0/2) Sixth Ave MRT, 24 (0/2), 22 (-2/0), 18 (-4/0), 19 (0/1), 20 (-2/3) KAP MRT, 23 (0/3)
Jalan Anak Bukit -- 25 (-6/8)
Beauty World MRT -- 28 (-1/4)
Upper Bukit Timah Road -- 28 (-2/2), 24 (-4/0) Bef Old Jurong Rd, 24 (0/0), 24 (0/0) Aft Hume, 24 (0/0), 20 (-5/1) Hillview MRT, 20 (0/0), 20 (0/0), 18 (-4/2) Cashew MRT, 17 (-1/0), 16 (-2/1)
Bukit Panjang MRT -- 16 (-4/4)
* Note there are 12 pax that go forward from BPJ
Bukit Panjang Road -- 14 (-9/7)
* Note the high alighting here!!
Jelubu Road -- 18 (0/4)
Petir Road -- 20 (-2/4), 21 (-2/4)
Pending Road -- 22 (-5/6)
Bukit Panjang Road -- 27 (-5/10)
* I alighted here. Note that 27 pax go forward to Yishun, so loading wasn't super high towards Yishun either from BPJ town
bus in front = 09 min, bus behind = 12 min.
* Peak loading (48 pax) @ Newton MRT. Loading pattern similar to 700 until Stevens (but 700 has higher loading on account of BPJ pax). Loading pattern similar to 170 to BPJ. Loading lesser than expected between BPJ and Yishun.
* Another example of how almost all services right from Stevens to BPJ carry only about 20-25 pax in peak direction of PM peak. At other times, these services could have <10 pax on board.
-
Originally posted by TIB 585L:
61 have more than 4 bendies when CCL just opened. I was talking about when it just opened not now. Now they upgrade the slots. Even 700 from 2 DD to 1 DD to 4 DD and 0 bendiesTrue. Before SMRT got DDs, 61 was operating with one bendy only.
For 700, it got major capacity reduction with DDs/bendies removed + buses cut, but again buses got added incl. DDs. From my observation, I think it is to meet the Scotts - Stevens demand which was quite high + there is still a good (40-45 pax) to BPJ.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
After taking 700, I decided to take 171 from Stamford St.
Time: 17.30
Stamford St -- 05 (0/2), 07 (-1/3), 09 (-1/3)
Dhoby Ghaut MRT -- 18 (-3/12)
Penang Road -- 21 (0/3)
Somerset MRT -- 25 (0/5)
Orchard Turn -- 28 (0/3), 31 (0/3)
Scotts Road -- 38 (-4/11), 41 (0/3), 48 (-2/9) Newton MRT
Dunearn/Bukit Timah Road -- 47 (-4/3), 46 (-3/2), 26 (-22/2) notice the huge alighting at this particular stop, 26 (-2/2), 24 (-2/0) Stevens MRT, 22 (-2/0), 25 (0/3), 22 (-5/2) Botanic Gardens MRT, 22 (-2/2), 22 (0/0), 22 (0/0) TTK MRT, 24 (-1/3), 20 (-6/2), 22 (0/2) Sixth Ave MRT, 24 (0/2), 22 (-2/0), 18 (-4/0), 19 (0/1), 20 (-2/3) KAP MRT, 23 (0/3)
Jalan Anak Bukit -- 25 (-6/8)
Beauty World MRT -- 28 (-1/4)
Upper Bukit Timah Road -- 28 (-2/2), 24 (-4/0) Bef Old Jurong Rd, 24 (0/0), 24 (0/0) Aft Hume, 24 (0/0), 20 (-5/1) Hillview MRT, 20 (0/0), 20 (0/0), 18 (-4/2) Cashew MRT, 17 (-1/0), 16 (-2/1)
Bukit Panjang MRT -- 16 (-4/4)
* Note there are 12 pax that go forward from BPJ
Bukit Panjang Road -- 14 (-9/7)
* Note the high alighting here!!
Jelubu Road -- 18 (0/4)
Petir Road -- 20 (-2/4), 21 (-2/4)
Pending Road -- 22 (-5/6)
Bukit Panjang Road -- 27 (-5/10)
* I alighted here. Note that 27 pax go forward to Yishun, so loading wasn't super high towards Yishun either from BPJ town
bus in front = 09 min, bus behind = 12 min.
* Peak loading (48 pax) @ Newton MRT. Loading pattern similar to 700 until Stevens (but 700 has higher loading on account of BPJ pax). Loading pattern similar to 170 to BPJ. Loading lesser than expected between BPJ and Yishun.
* Another example of how almost all services right from Stevens to BPJ carry only about 20-25 pax in peak direction of PM peak. At other times, these services could have <10 pax on board.
Maybe the poor loading beyong BPJ towards Yishun is due to the timing. The last time I took 171 a few days ago, it had at least 50 pax from Pending LRT all the way to Yishun Ave 5. It picked up some workers along Mandai Rd too.
-
359 face heavy loadings for 3-4 trips at PSR St 11 & St 51 consistently during peak hours..Several pax can't even board..Its best to deploy 2 double decker buses at least.Can kapo from svc 83 or 85.Pity those 359 BCs..
-
Originally posted by Sbs6750E:
Ya lor Circle Line no rationalisation mah.Hi mr sbs6750E, yes trend is new bus services. LTA just releases news that another 8 more new services to go in various towns by end 2017. 4 already implemented from sep 2016 to feb 2017 and another 2 new ones (374, 381) in march 2017. Another 8 more coming. Don't think much rationalisation will happen. I think maybe just cut back or minor amendment of 1-2 services. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr sbs6750E, yes trend is new bus services. LTA just releases news that another 8 more new services to go in various towns by end 2017. 4 already implemented from sep 2016 to feb 2017 and another 2 new ones (374, 381) in march 2017. Another 8 more coming. Don't think much rationalisation will happen. I think maybe just cut back or minor amendment of 1-2 services. Cheers. Thanks.
Isn't cutting back services a part of rationalization? For example, if 171 is cut to Yishun - Bukit Panjang, it is considered rationalization.
NEL rationalization involved shortening services too (e.g. 81, 103).
-
Originally posted by array88:
Isn't cutting back services a part of rationalization? For example, if 171 is cut to Yishun - Bukit Panjang, it is considered rationalization.
NEL rationalization involved shortening services too (e.g. 81, 103).
Hi mr array88, yes cutting back bus service routes is part of rationalization. But if cutting back 1 service and introducing another new service to replace a part of the 'cut-back' route is not really rationalisation. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by array88:
Maybe the poor loading beyong BPJ towards Yishun is due to the timing. The last time I took 171 a few days ago, it had at least 50 pax from Pending LRT all the way to Yishun Ave 5. It picked up some workers along Mandai Rd too.
Yes I think the same as it was already 645pm, but was during PM peak prime all along Bukit Timah/Upper Bukit Timah.
-
Originally posted by AJQZC:
Isn't it in both LTA and the bus companies' interest to utilize their resources optimally to reduce operation cost wastage? Putting less resources / modifying / withdrawing an unpopular route such that the saved resources can be better utilized elsewhere (such as new routes or those in need of fleet adds)? That's the entire purpose of service rationalization, isn't it?
Granted, the main obstacle to that would be PR and complaints from commuters, but economically it makes perfect sense to do so.
(When done properly, all alternatives should be taken care of that would reduce inconveniences to existing travel patterns to the minimum. )
(Edit: My bad, didn't see that you were referring to popular services. But the general idea for rationalization still holds.)
someone will say bus services is not purely about economics
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
someone will say bus services is not purely about economics
Hi mr TIB868X, yes I am the one. If it is really about economics, they will not introduce so many new services and pour in so many BSEP buses on existing services and only aim at less loading on each service and also to relieve overcrowding. Now 60% of bus services experience less overcrowding. They could have simply just give exact buses and let people stand up to the doors on most service during peak hours. Nowadays even during peak hours, most bus services can get to sit down already. I dare say better than MRT. Cheers. Thanks.
-
You know, the LTA should introduce surge pricing on bus services, where bus fares are cheaper after peak hours. Just like the price for utilities. This would encourage people to change their travel pattern, and reduce bus loading.
-
Originally posted by gekpohboy:
You know, the LTA should introduce surge pricing on bus services, where bus fares are cheaper after peak hours. Just like the price for utilities. This would encourage people to change their travel pattern, and reduce bus loading.
Hi mr gekpohboy, bus and MRT are for the masses. If you introduce surge pricing, what happened to the poor? Cheers. Thanks.
-
boarded 700A at stevens last night, there was demand between stevens mrt and newton mrt... i alighted at far east
-
Cash fare should be like this
Under 3.2km:$1.20
3.3-6.0km:$1.80
6.1-14.0km:$2.50
14.1-20.0km:$3.20
20.1km above:$3.60
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Cash fare should be like this
Under 3.2km:$1.20
3.3-6.0km:$1.80
6.1-14.0km:$2.50
14.1-20.0km:$3.20
20.1km above:$3.60
Hi mr carbikebus, bus fares more expensive than mrt? Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by gekpohboy:
You know, the LTA should introduce surge pricing on bus services, where bus fares are cheaper after peak hours. Just like the price for utilities. This would encourage people to change their travel pattern, and reduce bus loading.
You know LTA is encouraging carlight society.