DTL Rationalisation
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
Sorry to burst your two cents of worth.
The PIE is always jammed, Stevens Rd exit is jammed. How long it takes to clear Stevens Rd form up to get to Tanglin Mata chu bus stop? 10 mins?
10 mins could get me from Bt Panjang to KAP alrdy. Another 18 mins on the BKE can get me to Little India/ Bugis?
Look, face it, expressway are the worst form of roads esp if there's any accident.
Furthermore, there's a thing called feeder bus. Guess, till to this day your've no idea of the trunk/ feeder concept came up in the 1982 bus plan.
City Hall? Do many alight at City Hall area? If you notice, many alights at Orchard, so 190 can still takeover.
700 & 960 I can say it's fate is almost sealed. DTL plies to Suntec, Bayfront, MBFC (which 700 does not even cover), parts of Shenton Way & Chinatown.
It's not about bowing down to MRT, I guess you've not even seen how the 1987 - 1993 bus rationalisation program was implemented. Did you know 163 used to ply to Marina Square? Did you know 137 used to ply from Toa Payoh to Zoo? But why it was rationalised?
Like it or not, the MRT + feedering concept would inevitably kill off trunk buses. By then, buses could also be redeployed to serve other areas. Dun forget Yishun inner portion is developing.
AND it still does not get what i am talking abt;
1. WHY MENTION FEEDER BUSES WHEN IT NEEDED TO TRANSFER LIKE RT? I METION OREDI WHAT!!!!! SOME MAY NOT WANNA TRANSFER, YOU ARE THE ONE NOT GETTING THE CONCEPT.
2. It looks like u don't know the exact reason why 163 and 137 was rationalised.
-
^^ i would like to know why 137 and 163 merged also!
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
AND it still does not get what i am talking abt;
1. WHY MENTION FEEDER BUSES WHEN IT NEEDED TO TRANSFER LIKE RT? I METION OREDI WHAT!!!!! SOME MAY NOT WANNA TRANSFER, YOU ARE THE ONE NOT GETTING THE CONCEPT.
2. It looks like u don't know the exact reason why 163 and 137 was rationalised.
Dear SMB128B,
I will dispense the unpleasant words first before I start on the rest. Stop being a petulant child and keep pressing your points. Do bother to read up some credible sources on transport planning (note: LTA White Papers and Master Plans are good sources to start).
First, I will tackle your claim that it is better to have direct services into town compared to having a main MRT line with feeder services feeding people to the MRT line. There will be cases of people who will take the direct bus service that, in your own words, "stops just in front of their doorstep and travel straight to the city via the expressway, rather than taking that incompetant LRT and then transfer that chiong chiong MRT that goes circles in the middle-west."
Great. I concede this point of your argument. Sure, from the passenger point of view, who doesn't like having a direct service where they can take straight to city? I like that idea too. However, your argument ceases at this point and what you have argued is ergo, since direct services are desirable from passengers' point of view, we shouldn't withdraw these services. Please do not forget that public transport services do not exist in vacuo with only passengers' concerns. There are other logistical constraints that the service providers face.
Let me put in technical language for you and hopefully you can comprehend what sbst275 is trying to knock into your head. As LTA has outlined in their 2006 Master Plan paper, they are moving into the integrated hub model where bus and MRT services will be integrated into one single physical location and provide seamless transfer in between both services (btw Bukit Panjang was flagged as one of the towns to get this integrated hub in the future).
From a logistical point of view, the model you have been advocating is known as a point-to-point topology. Sure, it is desirable to have direct services in between towns (or in topological terms, high connectivity between nodes). However, this is unsustainable as the number of connections (vertices/bus services) needed to support the point-to-point topology increases exponentially as the number of nodes (towns) increases. The point-to-point topology is good for building redundancy into the network but is highly inefficient in a significant number of cases.
On the other hand, what LTA is advocating (and what the MRT+feeder model is too) is called a hub-and-spoke model where hubs are created and connections are fed into these hubs from smaller vertices (feeder services). From then on, it is a matter of linking up the hubs in the best way possible (MRT). This model is able to handle an increased number of nodes (towns) without having to increase the number of connections (bus services) exponentially. If you think the hub-and-spoke model is just academic bull, do note that it is used in the aviation industry where there are hubs like Atlanta Hartfield-Jackson and Chicago O-Hare airports that act as hubs for flights from smaller cities and then these hubs will be the bridge to other major cities.
As such, as sbst275 has pointed out, no matter whether you like it or not, the MRT+feeder model is here to stay at the expense of direct services. This is because Singapore cannot afford to have an unsustainable model of infrastructure given our land constraints. One simple illustration - if the number of services increase exponentially, so does the number of buses needed to service these routes. Where are you going to store the extra buses? We only have so much land for bus parks/depots. Secondly, buses are known to bunch up. Studies and simulations have shown that bus bunching is an inherently chaotic system (recall chaos theory). More buses will only worsen the problem of bus bunching and stress our over-stressed road network even further.
Your second point being, and I quote you ad verbatim, "What if DTL has its train in three cars coming in 8 mins? SBS somemore leh... cannot compare MRT experience wif SMRT since she only operated MRT in 2003 while SMRT oredi like 20+ yrs liao". If I recall correctly, you should be staying in the north-east, right? I used to stay there too. Since SBS started operating the NEL in 2003, it has been rather smooth sailing with not too many major breakdowns over these few years. Personal empirical experiences were also very positive. I took the NEL on the first day of its operation and it was smooth with no delays. I contrast this to the full opening of the CCL recently. I took it on the first day and was horrified at how SMRT can screw up so badly. Even up till now (and today), there are still random delays at every station plus train faults which was missing from what I recalled from NEL's early days in operation.
Hence, your argument that the MRT line may not operate well by virtue of SBS' relative lack of experience in handling MRT operations doesn't hold much water. In fact, from recent experiences, I will gladly say that (and is glad that) SBS is better-suited to operate the automated lines such as DTL. Even my friends agree that NEL is smooth and its early days were not even half as bad as CCL's now. Now, don't get me started on SMRT's experiences on handling the first automated transit system in Singapore - Bukit Panjang LRT. Maybe you were too young to remember but it was common to see breakdowns almost every other day in the first few years until they decided to do a major overhaul of the signalling system.Now, given all these, what say you?
-
basically what Mr SMB128B want is services with full fleet Citaros/KUB/Wrights (i.e WAB) that serve his house in sengkang to go every part of Singapore...... i.e all the buses that start in Sengkang interchange no matter what must turn big route around Sengkang and then to his house near Fernvale there before continuing the journey to other destinations....basically intergrating feeders and trunk services.
which is similar to what those Toa Payoh services does in the 80s, whereby Sv145/146 go Lor 1 and one big round... while, Sv150/152/158 etc go from Lor 2 to Lor 1A, Lor 1, Lor 2, Lor 3, Lor 5 etc etc before exiting Toa Payoh....
frankly speaking, such ideas is not feasible at all right now.. How many more buses need to be deployed... how long the journey is going to take? if i stay near SK interchange and want to go to bedok, then i board Sv87 it will go one big loop in SK first before going out of Sengkang, and then it will go one big round in HG as well, then when reaching bedok, sorry, it have to go one round in bedok as well (it wont be fair for the residents of bedok, if Sv87 go big round in SK, but does not go big round in bedok right?)... So how long the journey will take? 2 1/2 hours one way? so Mr SMB128B will be happy that Sv87 might call at bus stop near his house (so he wont have to transfer bus), but then by the time Sv87 reach Bedok interchange, it might be 2 1/2 hrs later due to all the turning/routing.. But guess mr SMB128B wont mind spending 2 1/2 hrs on bus to get to work as long as there are long winded services that will serve his and every one else houses?
imagine this is going to happen in AMK... Sv25 start from AMK Int, go Ave 3/6/1/10/5/6/3/4/9/st61/Ave 8/3 before continung to HG and then about to reach bedok, it will go one big round via bedok reservoir, bedok north, bedok south and chai chee before reaching interchange? 50 min journey become 2 1/2 hours? This is what Mr SMB128B want....
-
at the end of the day, SMB128B just wants a simple request only.........
full fleet Citaro on 163. -
You guys are wrong....this guy is an attention junkie and you all are still giving him the fix and now the problem is getting worse.
As I had said time and again, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
And look man, you don't like the CCL/DTL, that's your problem.
Even if I have to transfer up down left right centre, its still obviously much faster than taking bus. Even after the CCL broke down (AGAIN) last week, I still managed to shave 15 min off my usual travel time taking NEL->bus.
Its nothing short of god-send!
Same with NEL, you don't like it, that's also your problem. Everyone whom I know, acknowledge NEL as the most direct line. Just imagine: 20-25 min from my place to Dhoby Ghaut. What else do you want????
For god's sake, stop whinging and exams are coming, so why are you wasting time here?
-
Originally posted by SMB66X:
I rather they stick to current one, don't withdraw any svces. Those services can still be useful for passengers during peak hours.
Quite the opposite, buses are useful only during non-peak hours.
-
Originally posted by teraexa:
Dear SMB128B,
I will dispense the unpleasant words first before I start on the rest. Stop being a petulant child and keep pressing your points. Do bother to read up some credible sources on transport planning (note: LTA White Papers and Master Plans are good sources to start).
First, I will tackle your claim that it is better to have direct services into town compared to having a main MRT line with feeder services feeding people to the MRT line. There will be cases of people who will take the direct bus service that, in your own words, "stops just in front of their doorstep and travel straight to the city via the expressway, rather than taking that incompetant LRT and then transfer that chiong chiong MRT that goes circles in the middle-west."
Great. I concede this point of your argument. Sure, from the passenger point of view, who doesn't like having a direct service where they can take straight to city? I like that idea too. However, your argument ceases at this point and what you have argued is ergo, since direct services are desirable from passengers' point of view, we shouldn't withdraw these services. Please do not forget that public transport services do not exist in vacuo with only passengers' concerns. There are other logistical constraints that the service providers face.
Let me put in technical language for you and hopefully you can comprehend what sbst275 is trying to knock into your head. As LTA has outlined in their 2006 Master Plan paper, they are moving into the integrated hub model where bus and MRT services will be integrated into one single physical location and provide seamless transfer in between both services (btw Bukit Panjang was flagged as one of the towns to get this integrated hub in the future).
From a logistical point of view, the model you have been advocating is known as a point-to-point topology. Sure, it is desirable to have direct services in between towns (or in topological terms, high connectivity between nodes). However, this is unsustainable as the number of connections (vertices/bus services) needed to support the point-to-point topology increases exponentially as the number of nodes (towns) increases. The point-to-point topology is good for building redundancy into the network but is highly inefficient in a significant number of cases.
On the other hand, what LTA is advocating (and what the MRT+feeder model is too) is called a hub-and-spoke model where hubs are created and connections are fed into these hubs from smaller vertices (feeder services). From then on, it is a matter of linking up the hubs in the best way possible (MRT). This model is able to handle an increased number of nodes (towns) without having to increase the number of connections (bus services) exponentially. If you think the hub-and-spoke model is just academic bull, do note that it is used in the aviation industry where there are hubs like Atlanta Hartfield-Jackson and Chicago O-Hare airports that act as hubs for flights from smaller cities and then these hubs will be the bridge to other major cities.
As such, as sbst275 has pointed out, no matter whether you like it or not, the MRT+feeder model is here to stay at the expense of direct services. This is because Singapore cannot afford to have an unsustainable model of infrastructure given our land constraints. One simple illustration - if the number of services increase exponentially, so does the number of buses needed to service these routes. Where are you going to store the extra buses? We only have so much land for bus parks/depots. Secondly, buses are known to bunch up. Studies and simulations have shown that bus bunching is an inherently chaotic system (recall chaos theory). More buses will only worsen the problem of bus bunching and stress our over-stressed road network even further.
Your second point being, and I quote you ad verbatim, "What if DTL has its train in three cars coming in 8 mins? SBS somemore leh... cannot compare MRT experience wif SMRT since she only operated MRT in 2003 while SMRT oredi like 20+ yrs liao". If I recall correctly, you should be staying in the north-east, right? I used to stay there too. Since SBS started operating the NEL in 2003, it has been rather smooth sailing with not too many major breakdowns over these few years. Personal empirical experiences were also very positive. I took the NEL on the first day of its operation and it was smooth with no delays. I contrast this to the full opening of the CCL recently. I took it on the first day and was horrified at how SMRT can screw up so badly. Even up till now (and today), there are still random delays at every station plus train faults which was missing from what I recalled from NEL's early days in operation.
Hence, your argument that the MRT line may not operate well by virtue of SBS' relative lack of experience in handling MRT operations doesn't hold much water. In fact, from recent experiences, I will gladly say that (and is glad that) SBS is better-suited to operate the automated lines such as DTL. Even my friends agree that NEL is smooth and its early days were not even half as bad as CCL's now. Now, don't get me started on SMRT's experiences on handling the first automated transit system in Singapore - Bukit Panjang LRT. Maybe you were too young to remember but it was common to see breakdowns almost every other day in the first few years until they decided to do a major overhaul of the signalling system.Now, given all these, what say you?
What say me?
First, I HATE people who discriminate my age. I may be like a kid, all right, but that's only I am DESPERATE. You get it? Just becoz SBS and Comfortdelgro are TOO systematic, so they cannot react to sudden changes, and that's what SMRT is gd at. They kept on going their own ways and did not reply properly when I concerned abt 163's issue. Again, CCL may NOT be SMRT's problem. Why not blame the LTA which just sits there and do nothing but hand SMRT more and MORE penalty fines? Remember, CCL can EVEN be affected by the collaspe of the Nicoll Highway in 2004. Though chances may kill, but anything CAN be possible.
Now, Bukit Panjang LRT. Remember: I OREDI MENTIONED THAT IT'S SO LOUSY, WHO WILL TAKE IT TO TRANSFER MRT???!!! That's LRT, NOT MRT, two seperate matters. SBS can operate LRT properly, alll right, but SBS made its MRT so pathetic I hate taking it now. I'd rather take SMRT's EWL, which hardly had delays too. NSL oso (although I know recently there's a delay). So I don't EVEN NEED YOU TO GET STARTED ON THAT PATHETIC TRASH.
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
basically what Mr SMB128B want is services with full fleet Citaros/KUB/Wrights (i.e WAB) that serve his house in sengkang to go every part of Singapore...... i.e all the buses that start in Sengkang interchange no matter what must turn big route around Sengkang and then to his house near Fernvale there before continuing the journey to other destinations....basically intergrating feeders and trunk services.
which is similar to what those Toa Payoh services does in the 80s, whereby Sv145/146 go Lor 1 and one big round... while, Sv150/152/158 etc go from Lor 2 to Lor 1A, Lor 1, Lor 2, Lor 3, Lor 5 etc etc before exiting Toa Payoh....
frankly speaking, such ideas is not feasible at all right now.. How many more buses need to be deployed... how long the journey is going to take? if i stay near SK interchange and want to go to bedok, then i board Sv87 it will go one big loop in SK first before going out of Sengkang, and then it will go one big round in HG as well, then when reaching bedok, sorry, it have to go one round in bedok as well (it wont be fair for the residents of bedok, if Sv87 go big round in SK, but does not go big round in bedok right?)... So how long the journey will take? 2 1/2 hours one way? so Mr SMB128B will be happy that Sv87 might call at bus stop near his house (so he wont have to transfer bus), but then by the time Sv87 reach Bedok interchange, it might be 2 1/2 hrs later due to all the turning/routing.. But guess mr SMB128B wont mind spending 2 1/2 hrs on bus to get to work as long as there are long winded services that will serve his and every one else houses?
imagine this is going to happen in AMK... Sv25 start from AMK Int, go Ave 3/6/1/10/5/6/3/4/9/st61/Ave 8/3 before continung to HG and then about to reach bedok, it will go one big round via bedok reservoir, bedok north, bedok south and chai chee before reaching interchange? 50 min journey become 2 1/2 hours? This is what Mr SMB128B want....
kids nowadays... just like to assume and jump to other topics... -
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
You guys are wrong....this guy is an attention junkie and you all are still giving him the fix and now the problem is getting worse.
As I had said time and again, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
And look man, you don't like the CCL/DTL, that's your problem.
Even if I have to transfer up down left right centre, its still obviously much faster than taking bus. Even after the CCL broke down (AGAIN) last week, I still managed to shave 15 min off my usual travel time taking NEL->bus.
Its nothing short of god-send!
Same with NEL, you don't like it, that's also your problem. Everyone whom I know, acknowledge NEL as the most direct line. Just imagine: 20-25 min from my place to Dhoby Ghaut. What else do you want????
For god's sake, stop whinging and exams are coming, so why are you wasting time here?
why are u all thinking i kid? i can assume more than 60% here are kids... but not me since i had no exams liao... i got projects though
-
A kid, by the way, is the young of a goat.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
A kid, by the way, is the young of a goat.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
AND it still does not get what i am talking abt;
1. WHY MENTION FEEDER BUSES WHEN IT NEEDED TO TRANSFER LIKE RT? I METION OREDI WHAT!!!!! SOME MAY NOT WANNA TRANSFER, YOU ARE THE ONE NOT GETTING THE CONCEPT.
2. It looks like u don't know the exact reason why 163 and 137 was rationalised.
Then you want the bus to serve everyone one big round?Like the old 153... Make 1 round inside Toa Payoh Lor 1, Lor 7, Braddell Rd, Lornie Rd before getting to Bt Merah.
Used to have lots of buses plying Lor 1, you sure there's such a need? Then those living at Central gotta suffer the one big round?
163 was rationalised to reduce buses inside the CBD, for since the MRT has commenced ops. 410 came about to ply parts of Upp Thomson..
137 was removed as anyway demand was pretty low.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
What say me?
First, I HATE people who discriminate my age. I may be like a kid, all right, but that's only I am DESPERATE. You get it? Just becoz SBS and Comfortdelgro are TOO systematic, so they cannot react to sudden changes, and that's what SMRT is gd at. They kept on going their own ways and did not reply properly when I concerned abt 163's issue. Again, CCL may NOT be SMRT's problem. Why not blame the LTA which just sits there and do nothing but hand SMRT more and MORE penalty fines? Remember, CCL can EVEN be affected by the collaspe of the Nicoll Highway in 2004. Though chances may kill, but anything CAN be possible.
Now, Bukit Panjang LRT. Remember: I OREDI MENTIONED THAT IT'S SO LOUSY, WHO WILL TAKE IT TO TRANSFER MRT???!!! That's LRT, NOT MRT, two seperate matters. SBS can operate LRT properly, alll right, but SBS made its MRT so pathetic I hate taking it now. I'd rather take SMRT's EWL, which hardly had delays too. NSL oso (although I know recently there's a delay). So I don't EVEN NEED YOU TO GET STARTED ON THAT PATHETIC TRASH.
There's good things abt systematic. Any problem can be traced very easily. That was how things came about.
I think you've better not cry when SBS buses starts to go w/o system...
Anyway NEL is the only line left to bother indicate the next train headways even if it's 7 mins or 8 mins. I'm not going into so many things gone rosak when CCL commenced.
Now this is not abt politics, but happens so back then the old guards era was pure PAP in parliament. I think if you lived that era, the way it's going, you would gone jelly leg...
-
I think by 1982, SBS found it difficult to continue w/ full trunk concept..
else why they spent the money get the Swedes to map up new bus plans?
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
There's good things abt systematic. Any problem can be traced very easily. That was how things came about.
I think you've better not cry when SBS buses starts to go w/o system...
Anyway NEL is the only line left to bother indicate the next train headways even if it's 7 mins or 8 mins. I'm not going into so many things gone rosak when CCL commenced.
Now this is not abt politics, but happens so back then the old guards era was pure PAP in parliament. I think if you lived that era, the way it's going, you would gone jelly leg...
Why bother another blind supporter? It is rather depressing that there is actually someone who disagrees with being systematic. Imagine there is no system, how can a company be successful? If there is no system, how can this guy have access to water, electricity, medical aids, food and even internet access to post his nonsensical rantings everyday? I agree with teraexa views. Even though SBST experience in running the rail system is not very long, but they handled it well over the years, even rail is not their main forte. SMRT on the other hand, though running its main business for more than 20 years, its automated rail systems are terrible. Even Bukit Panjang LRT till date is still having problems. Even man operated lines they can't even do well recently. Although LTA share the burden to ensure the rail efficiency, it is still the job that the rail operator ensures it runs smoothly. If not, why should LTA allow it to run the line in the first place? React to sudden changes? My foot. They can't even work with SBST to deploy buses fast enough to disperse the crowd from the recent CCL and NSL breakdowns. And instead of doing appropriate procedures on sudden changes, they caused more confusion and chaos and waste more of the commuters' time, which made things worse. And if they even bother to do a proper planning in the first place, would such incidents happened in the first place? The way they operate all their businesses from rail to bus to cabs is really nonsense, although SBST is not really that perfect too, but at least way better. -
The train door dwell time never got it right for CCL even till to this day..
Even the display '8 Paya Lebar' & '9 one-north' dun sound a ring? one-north is HarbourFront?
-
1.5 pages of feeding Some Motherfucking Bastard One Two Eight Bee... sigh
Please press on with discussion related to topic and let the bai kar dwell in his SIMS city 4 life where everything must be pefect for him.
I have finished my popcorns since i last fucked his sorry ass a few weeks ago and have no money to buy more. More constructive discussions please
-
Have no wish of feeding..
But what's lamented or demanded was something we had dealt with 30 yrs ago.. Dun tell me rewind back to the same problem again.
-
Eh I dun get inconveniced?
When I need to take outgoing bus that does not ply my place, I need to head to the bus interchange.
Even I know not every single bus can ply my place. Get it
-
It's amazing how some people have such romantic notions of EWL. Personally, the EWL is always crowded no matter the time of the day (even last train) while NEL is less crowded by comparison.
That said, one cannot expect his journeys to be fulfilled by public transport service point-to-point. Just work your travels around the system and find your way to your destination using the best possible route depending on constraints (costs or time). I know of at least 3 different routes of getting to my school depending on the time of the day. Do I want point-to-point routes? Sure it's desirable. However, cars and taxis exist for a reason.
And before that troll starts whining about how I label him a kid when I am still ostensibly going to "school", I would like to pre-empt his flaming by telling him 2 words:
ORD LOH.
Talk to me when you have served your duty to the country.
-
Originally posted by SBST390:
1.5 pages of feeding Some Motherfucking Bastard One Two Eight Bee... sigh
very good description....:)
-
Originally posted by SBST390:
1.5 pages of feeding Some Motherfucking Bastard One Two Eight Bee... sigh
Please press on with discussion related to topic and let the bai kar dwell in his SIMS city 4 life where everything must be pefect for him.
I have finished my popcorns since i last fucked his sorry ass a few weeks ago and have no money to buy more. More constructive discussions please
And some flaming and low-class kiddy insulting comments from some fucking Si Bei Siao Till Three (tree) Nine (none) O (Oh) (i know i shouldn't flame too, but looking at how he insulted my mother makes me boil like hell. after all, i can treat him back the way he treated me, if that's what he want right?)!All I wanted to say is, don't withdraw anymore bus lines since they can be useful in some sense, i don't mean to feed the troll. BUT some disliked my opinion and gave a reason that MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. So look who is talking.
Sorry for the inconvenience caused for those not in this little argument. i shall close it now.
-
food for thought...
If bus schedules reliability can't even be met again, can still suggesting insisting or demanding buses to make 1 big round at all cost to serve you.
Your kids can go on and waste everyone's time and resources to demand for this and that and rather claim ppl dunno anything abt bus rationalisation.
Things were done in that manner 30 yrs ago for a reason.
Sometimes SBS should just ignore the kids, waste everyone's time to settle what's more important right now.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
And some flaming and low-class kiddy insulting comments from some fucking Si Bei Siao Till Three (tree) Nine (none) O (Oh) (i know i shouldn't flame too, but looking at how he insulted my mother makes me boil like hell. after all, i can treat him back the way he treated me, if that's what he want right?)!All I wanted to say is, don't withdraw anymore bus lines since they can be useful in some sense, i don't mean to feed the troll. BUT some disliked my opinion and gave a reason that MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. So look who is talking.
Sorry for the inconvenience caused for those not in this little argument. i shall close it now.
Because you dun understand the reason and instead out of fear of being exposed, you start questioning people abt saying dunno why 137 & 163 was rationalised.
Furthermore, if anyone can start poking names than getting the problem addressed can be ignored actually.
I guess, whoever from PTO is reading, it should be clear just who's been blurring what's to be improved in the recent months.