Looks like I'll need to furnish details at the bus system at NUS. It might not be able to handle the demand at NUS, but the routing and buses used is something that NTU can consider.
Public bus services in NUS's KRC:
1) SBS Sv 95 (Kent Ridge - NUS - NUH - Nth Buona Vista Rd/ Buona Vista MRT Stn - Holland Rd/ Holland V (Loop)):
*SBS cannot dispatch double decks because of the low clearance at Lower Kent Ridge Rd.
2) SBS Sv 96 (Clementi - C'wealth Ave West - Clementi Rd - NUS (Loop)):
This bus links from Clementi Int to NUS (Kent Ridge Crescent, operates inside KRC ONCE plying on the side of NUS Raffles Hall & Computer Ctr).
*fully single decker fleet lineup.
3) SBS Sv 151 (Hougang - Airport Rd - Macpherson Rd - Jln Toa Payoh/ PIE - Bt Timah/ NUS BTC/ King Albert Park - Clementi Rd - NUS - Kent Ridge):
This bus is the only long haul route in campus. It mainly caters for those intending to transfer to other buses at Clementi Rd, Bt Timah or Toa Payoh mostly. There are some who would travel all the way to Hougang.
The bus serves NP & UniSIM - this explains why double decker buses are dispatched to 151.
4) SBS Sv 151e (Peak hour service): Express service of 151, plying the HDB residential areas of Hougang & Toa Payoh along Jln Toa Payoh to Clementi Rd.
5) Kent Ridge Terminal: SBS Sv 10, 33, 95, 151, 151e (PM peak), 200, SMRT Sv 189.
Fringe areas
At Clementi Rd: SBS Sv 33, 183, SMRT Sv 188. At AYE: SBS Sv 97, 197, 198, SMRT Sv 963. At Pasir Panjang Rd: SBS Sv 10, 30, 30e, 51, 143, 183, 200, SMRT Sv 188.
Internal Shuttle Bus
1) Sv A1/ A2: Both runs in either clockwise or anti clockwise direction, similiar to the Green/ White plates used by SBS for Sv 170, 225, 231, 243 to indicate the plying direction.
Sv A1's route, it plies from PGP Residence --> NUH -> Medical Faculty -> Sciences -> SRC -> Yusof Ishak Hse -> Ctrl Lib -> FASS -> SoC -> Biz -> PGP.
A2's route: PGP -> Biz -> SoC -> Temasek & Eusoff Hall(s) -> Opp FASS --> Computer Ctr -> Opp Yusof Ishak Hse --> OED -> SRC -> Sciences -> Opp Medical Faculty -> NUH --> PGP.
--> denotes bus stops skipped in between.
Notice that A2 does not ply at every bus stops in NUS:
a) SDE: The bus stop is too near to the Kent Ridge Crescent/ Kent Ridge Drive junction where the bus turned from. Furthermore this bus stop is quite busy with SBS Svs 95, 96 & 151. The alternative bus stop is either Opp FASS or Computer Ctr.
This could remind people of what I mentioned about the bus stop at Opp WKWSCI back at NTU.
b) NUS Raffles Hall: The bus would bypass this bus stop en-route making a u-turn to OED before proceeding to Lower Kent Ridge Rd. There's an Sv B that covers this bus stop. I believe it's also to prevent confusion.
For both A1 & A2:
a) South Buona Vista Rd/ Science Park I: Stating the obvious, the bus stop is not in the NUS campus boundary.
This route uses the Scania low floor buses I've mentioned in the previous post to improve turnaround time. I'll illustrate how come the turnaround time is critical to the operator and students in the long run later on.
2) Sv B: Eng -> OED -> Yusof Ishak Hse -> Ctrl Lib -> FASS -> SoC -> Temasek/ Eusoff Hall(s) -> Opp FASS --> Computer Ctr -> Opp Yusof Ishak Hse -> Raffles Hall -> Eng
Notice the bus skips the SDE bus stop. This service B acts as to supplement Sv A2 by allowing students at the Temasek & Eusoff Hall(s) to have better boarding chances.
*This is similiar to the Hall 1/ 2/ 6/ 8 issue that I'm referring to during the morning peak hours.
3) Sv C: Eng -> OED -> SRC -> Sciences -> Medical Faculty -> Loop at NUH roundabout -> Medical Faculty -> Sciences -> SRC -> Raffles Hall -> Eng
This service is a supplementary service for those are travelling from Eng to Medical Fac and for those who are intending to head to Lower Kent Ridge Rd after alighting from SBS Sv 151.
4) Sv D: Biz --> Opp FASS --> Computer Ctr -> Opp Yusof Ishak Hse --> Sciences -> Medical Faculty -> Loop at NUH roundabout -> Medical Faculty -> Sciences --> Yusof Ishak Hse -> Ctrl Lib -> FASS --> Biz
This is a semi express acad service. It proceeds to FASS & Ctrl Lib straight after Biz and bypass SoC, Eusoff & Temasek Hall(s) & SRC along Lower Kent Ridge Rd.
Though I've never seen Sv D before, I believe together with Sv C, it's mostly for students who need to travel between faculties. NUS's campus is much bigger than NTU in terms of the location of the faculties i..e they're not close to each other.
Finally, I'll state why students and operators would benefit with a better turnaround time and efficiency. As again, SBS has been doing very well in this. Guess many of us has taken the efficient bus services for granted.
I do admit China made buses are cheap, they cost 1/2 the price of a low floor bus from Europe. Since the low floor buses are able to clear each and every bus stop faster, they ended up being far superior than the China made buses in terms of long term ops cost. I'll state the following relations:
1) With a faster turnaround time, the buses would need lesser time to complete a trip. This generates into possibly saving one bus for the operator for the same ridership. It does not seem big, but figure the long term cost of being able to save the cost of 1 bus, fuel, wages for the driver for the next 15 years of the bus's lifespan.
That said, the European would end up doing more trips on a per bus basis. Henceforth, the fuel cost per bus would be slightly higher.
2) Frequency: With one bus saved, they could either allow the Sv to be more frequent or just simply keep the savings.
3) Maintenance: I believe the China made buses aren't that 'complete' whereby there's after sales maintenance services compared to the European buses. More specifically, maybe I'll touch on the availability of spare parts.
Buses do need their fitting spare parts to work at the best efficiency should they need a overhaul.
This is my estimation:
Usage of 4 China made buses:
1) Cost $175k each ($700k, works out to be $160 per day over 12 years).
2) Wages: i.e. $1800, ~ $240 per day (Just for simplicity, the drivers are allocated to their own buses).
3) Fuel: Not sure about it, but I can estimate to be around $400 per day/ bus?
Total daily cost: ~$2000 range for 4 buses?
Usage of 3 European low floor bus instead.
1) Cost: $350k each ($1050k, works out to be $240 per day over 12 years).
2) Wages: ~$178 per day.
3) Fuel: As the European buses are more fuel efficient (Auto transmission does minus the advantage, but they still win weights as they're able to climb the slopes at NUS & NTU better than the manual transmission China made buses) ~ $415?
Total daily cost: ~$1600 - $1700 range by using 3 buses?
So 'cheaper' China buses turns out not to be tat 'low cost' after all.
So you could figure how come SBS has been able to keep cost low and still able to carry 2.4m of us daily. :)
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Finally.. settled down in uni
time flies. It's coming to the sort of 2/3 mark in sem 1 of Uni alrdy.
Think I'll pen down about the internal shuttle bus service in campus - it's terrible!
I do not wish to be nasty, but I think credit be given that at least 1 more bus is deployed to NTU-A, B & C ever since October. But I guess what I'm going to comment is more of a long term issue/ solution.
Firstly, the current situation/ arrangement by SU & SAO is not sustainable in the long run in terms of ops cost vis a vis efficiency. Think I'll list the entire problem with wat's wrong with the shuttle service in campus.
1) No scheduling: Firstly, unlike our public bus company SBS, the internal shuttles does not really enforce a strict regiment on the bus schedule except for the stipulated breaks.
SBS: Schedules are micromanaged into 1) per trip (whereby buses are planned to arrive at selected bus stops at stipulated timings), 2) time belt (generally the travelling time/ run time needed during peak and off peak hours are different due to traffic and loading conditions), 3) per shift (the drver's mealbreak and the entire bus lineup/ freq for the service).
SBS does practice Holiday, Sat, Sun and other special schedules to suit the different loading scenarios. All these are to optimise resources to improve efficiency.
NTU Internal Shuttle: All I can say, nothing mentioned above is practiced. The only thing about the timetable allocated to the drivers only stupulate what time are they driving and what time do they go off for their break.
There's no proper control of how spaced apart the buses should be. That explains why everyone in NTU would see 3x Sv A or C buses together. In any case, both Svs only has 3 buses deployed.
Ironic part was SBS came from the same situation as like in NTU right now before computerisation helped them to plan individual timetables. That's like before 1980 (reading SBS's annual reports dated from 1980 - 1992 found at NTU's Biz lib).
2) Wrong type of buses used: The new shuttle buses are coaches than city buses. Henceforth the ideal passenger loading is to be w/o any standee.
Why so? It's because the aisle are so narrow! The standees has to shift left and right to be able to allow those seating to be able to alight from this bus.
Imagine the bus has to spend more time at each and every bus stop in campus just for this. How inefficient isn't it?
I find it unbelieveable the wider aisle buses are instead dispatched to NTU-D where it's barred to carry standees.
3) Too many bus stops to call: This applies to Sv C in particular. I can't relate why there's a need for a bus stop Opp WKWSCI to be in operation when there's 1 at Hall 7 & Opp SBS?
I admit hall stayers would want buses at the closest boarding pts, but I guess a compromise needs to be made with efficiency.
4) Morning peak loading: I guess the boarding problem in the morning is worst at the Hall 1/ 2/ 6/ 8 cluster. As it's not possible to add on more buses onto Sv A in lieu of the heavy flow of Sv 179/ 179A inside campus, would it be possible to implement short working trips on Sv C?
The short working trip could be operated as a variation of Sv C: Hall 8 > Opp Canteen 2 > Hall 6 > Opp Hall 1 > Opp Hall 4/ 5 > Opp Inno Ctr > SPMS > Hall 7 > Opp SBS > Opp CEE > NIE Blk 2 > Hall 8 in the morning.
In the afternoon, the bus could be operated between NIE Blk 2 > Hall 8 > Opp Canteen 2 > Hall 6 > Opp Hall 1 only to relieve Sv C's load.
There's no rational into making a full loop because Sv C should be empty at Opp Inno Ctr bus stop and furthermore, the problem would likely be Hall 1/ 2/ 6's residents trying to return back to Hall from Nth Spine as there's Sv B for those at Hall 8 - 16.
5) Low floor buses: As I looked at the new low floor Scania buses plying on NUS's internal shuttle bus, I was wondering should the school's bus tender requirement taking into consideration the benefits of using low floor buses?
I understand such buses are more expensive (A low floor bus purchased by SBS cost some $350k), but bear in mind the long term benefits in the bus stop turnaround time, overall travelling time which sadly does not have any 'real' monetary value.
Filming at Canteen 2 bus stop: I still remembered some fellow students trying to take pics of SBS 179 buses not stopping 'properly' at Canteen 2 bus stop.
I find it disturbing because many does not realise how come the bus stop is in such an manner that makes it difficult for the bus drivers to steer (FYI, the double decks on 179 are w/o power steering, can sympathise w/ the bus driver uncle who need to make the turn?).
That bus stop used to be a bus terminal. Henceforth, the design was meant to allow SBS to park 1x Sv 174 (NTI - Bt Batok - Bt Timah - Orchard - Chinatown) bus at the bus bay at any time.
But as Sv 174 ceased to operate from then NTI in 1991, the bus terminal was closed, but the bus bay was never modified and left as it is till today.
Oh well, I've better stop here and head into sleep
Think I'll pen down about the internal shuttle bus service in campus - it's terrible!
I do not wish to be nasty, but I think credit be given that at least 1 more bus is deployed to NTU-A, B & C ever since October. But I guess what I'm going to comment is more of a long term issue/ solution.
Firstly, the current situation/ arrangement by SU & SAO is not sustainable in the long run in terms of ops cost vis a vis efficiency. Think I'll list the entire problem with wat's wrong with the shuttle service in campus.
1) No scheduling: Firstly, unlike our public bus company SBS, the internal shuttles does not really enforce a strict regiment on the bus schedule except for the stipulated breaks.
SBS: Schedules are micromanaged into 1) per trip (whereby buses are planned to arrive at selected bus stops at stipulated timings), 2) time belt (generally the travelling time/ run time needed during peak and off peak hours are different due to traffic and loading conditions), 3) per shift (the drver's mealbreak and the entire bus lineup/ freq for the service).
SBS does practice Holiday, Sat, Sun and other special schedules to suit the different loading scenarios. All these are to optimise resources to improve efficiency.
NTU Internal Shuttle: All I can say, nothing mentioned above is practiced. The only thing about the timetable allocated to the drivers only stupulate what time are they driving and what time do they go off for their break.
There's no proper control of how spaced apart the buses should be. That explains why everyone in NTU would see 3x Sv A or C buses together. In any case, both Svs only has 3 buses deployed.
Ironic part was SBS came from the same situation as like in NTU right now before computerisation helped them to plan individual timetables. That's like before 1980 (reading SBS's annual reports dated from 1980 - 1992 found at NTU's Biz lib).
2) Wrong type of buses used: The new shuttle buses are coaches than city buses. Henceforth the ideal passenger loading is to be w/o any standee.
Why so? It's because the aisle are so narrow! The standees has to shift left and right to be able to allow those seating to be able to alight from this bus.
Imagine the bus has to spend more time at each and every bus stop in campus just for this. How inefficient isn't it?
I find it unbelieveable the wider aisle buses are instead dispatched to NTU-D where it's barred to carry standees.
3) Too many bus stops to call: This applies to Sv C in particular. I can't relate why there's a need for a bus stop Opp WKWSCI to be in operation when there's 1 at Hall 7 & Opp SBS?
I admit hall stayers would want buses at the closest boarding pts, but I guess a compromise needs to be made with efficiency.
4) Morning peak loading: I guess the boarding problem in the morning is worst at the Hall 1/ 2/ 6/ 8 cluster. As it's not possible to add on more buses onto Sv A in lieu of the heavy flow of Sv 179/ 179A inside campus, would it be possible to implement short working trips on Sv C?
The short working trip could be operated as a variation of Sv C: Hall 8 > Opp Canteen 2 > Hall 6 > Opp Hall 1 > Opp Hall 4/ 5 > Opp Inno Ctr > SPMS > Hall 7 > Opp SBS > Opp CEE > NIE Blk 2 > Hall 8 in the morning.
In the afternoon, the bus could be operated between NIE Blk 2 > Hall 8 > Opp Canteen 2 > Hall 6 > Opp Hall 1 only to relieve Sv C's load.
There's no rational into making a full loop because Sv C should be empty at Opp Inno Ctr bus stop and furthermore, the problem would likely be Hall 1/ 2/ 6's residents trying to return back to Hall from Nth Spine as there's Sv B for those at Hall 8 - 16.
5) Low floor buses: As I looked at the new low floor Scania buses plying on NUS's internal shuttle bus, I was wondering should the school's bus tender requirement taking into consideration the benefits of using low floor buses?
I understand such buses are more expensive (A low floor bus purchased by SBS cost some $350k), but bear in mind the long term benefits in the bus stop turnaround time, overall travelling time which sadly does not have any 'real' monetary value.
Filming at Canteen 2 bus stop: I still remembered some fellow students trying to take pics of SBS 179 buses not stopping 'properly' at Canteen 2 bus stop.
I find it disturbing because many does not realise how come the bus stop is in such an manner that makes it difficult for the bus drivers to steer (FYI, the double decks on 179 are w/o power steering, can sympathise w/ the bus driver uncle who need to make the turn?).
That bus stop used to be a bus terminal. Henceforth, the design was meant to allow SBS to park 1x Sv 174 (NTI - Bt Batok - Bt Timah - Orchard - Chinatown) bus at the bus bay at any time.
But as Sv 174 ceased to operate from then NTI in 1991, the bus terminal was closed, but the bus bay was never modified and left as it is till today.
Oh well, I've better stop here and head into sleep
Friday, September 17, 2010
NTU Pioneer MRT Shuttle Bus route changes 20/09/10
It's kinda of last minute changes.
In any case, from Mon 20/09/10, the NTU Pioneer shuttle bus will no longer call the following bus stops on Weekdays. There will be no changes to Sat, Sun & PHs routing.
Bus stops to be skipped: ADM, LWN Lib, CEE, SBS, WKWSCI, Hall 7, Innovation Ctr, Hall 4 & Hall 5.
Additional bus stops: Opp Canteen 2, Hall 6, Opp Hall 1 (Basically the YOG route).
The mass mail sent by SU/ SAO is really. It's increasing max capacity per hr and not ridership. lol
In any case, from Mon 20/09/10, the NTU Pioneer shuttle bus will no longer call the following bus stops on Weekdays. There will be no changes to Sat, Sun & PHs routing.
Bus stops to be skipped: ADM, LWN Lib, CEE, SBS, WKWSCI, Hall 7, Innovation Ctr, Hall 4 & Hall 5.
Additional bus stops: Opp Canteen 2, Hall 6, Opp Hall 1 (Basically the YOG route).
The mass mail sent by SU/ SAO is really. It's increasing max capacity per hr and not ridership. lol
Thursday, September 9, 2010
不明白为何人人都已现金支付新柔巴士车资
真的不明白为什么这么多人从新山乘搭CW1或者160／170都已现金支付。其实连乘搭CW1支付RM1到克兰芝地铁站都贵过使用“易通卡”（除了乘搭地铁到油池站－这情况十分特别，与旧车资行程及相等的车资有关联）。
如果乘客乘搭CW1黄Bus,在一些行程肯定要支付超过$2新币的车资。
乘搭170在新山使用“易通卡”除了乘搭环线或东北地铁线不必支付$2.
以下是新旧车资相比的结论。
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1HOusI_vJugetJTIgdmdHZMc4JjnX9bJRmUgx_F_HCzw&hl=en
如果乘客乘搭CW1黄Bus,在一些行程肯定要支付超过$2新币的车资。
乘搭170在新山使用“易通卡”除了乘搭环线或东北地铁线不必支付$2.
以下是新旧车资相比的结论。
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1HOusI_vJugetJTIgdmdHZMc4JjnX9bJRmUgx_F_HCzw&hl=en
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Accountability - What's preached and what's executed
Our dear gabrament has constantly mentioned about responsibility, accountability and integrity.
But seriously I'm personally thinking twice about this after reading some feedback replies. Received a reply from LTA about the public bus driver's driving issue that I feedback some time back in late July due to one freak near accident.
It seems everything about driving is the public bus driver's fault. In reality imo the bus company is the biggest guilty party - the bus schedules are not properly planned where buses could end up being 'late' - resulting in the speeding SMRT buses.
My suspicion is the schedules are planned as if the buses are constantly moving at 60km/hr.
Seems that our highly paid young gabrament scholars do not even understand their job well in creating reliable public transport services. Even SMRT can't understand why their bus operations is in the red (inefficiencies created by themselves, scheduling is one thing). No one knows how to solve the root of the problem though they're so much academically inclined and so talented than normal Singaporeans like myself.
At the end of the day, the bus driver is just doing his/ her job - trying to meet the schedule so as not to cause the bus company to get into trouble with PTC over the Quality of Standard (QoS) regulation over bus schedules.
Reminds me, some of the special needs with regards to distance fare on Sv 160/ 170 (As people has to alight at Woodlands for immigration clearacnce, the normal transfer rules would create problems under 'No transfer to same bus service' rule) has to be resolved by the bus company themselves.
Ironic when LTA is taking over the distance fare, bus service planning, yet special needs has to be resolved by others.
I just do not wish to go on openly as to my belief how the YOG food poisoning occurred because I saw something that ought not to have occured during the official opening ceremony regarding food.
But seriously I'm personally thinking twice about this after reading some feedback replies. Received a reply from LTA about the public bus driver's driving issue that I feedback some time back in late July due to one freak near accident.
It seems everything about driving is the public bus driver's fault. In reality imo the bus company is the biggest guilty party - the bus schedules are not properly planned where buses could end up being 'late' - resulting in the speeding SMRT buses.
My suspicion is the schedules are planned as if the buses are constantly moving at 60km/hr.
Seems that our highly paid young gabrament scholars do not even understand their job well in creating reliable public transport services. Even SMRT can't understand why their bus operations is in the red (inefficiencies created by themselves, scheduling is one thing). No one knows how to solve the root of the problem though they're so much academically inclined and so talented than normal Singaporeans like myself.
At the end of the day, the bus driver is just doing his/ her job - trying to meet the schedule so as not to cause the bus company to get into trouble with PTC over the Quality of Standard (QoS) regulation over bus schedules.
Reminds me, some of the special needs with regards to distance fare on Sv 160/ 170 (As people has to alight at Woodlands for immigration clearacnce, the normal transfer rules would create problems under 'No transfer to same bus service' rule) has to be resolved by the bus company themselves.
Ironic when LTA is taking over the distance fare, bus service planning, yet special needs has to be resolved by others.
I just do not wish to go on openly as to my belief how the YOG food poisoning occurred because I saw something that ought not to have occured during the official opening ceremony regarding food.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Temasek Review's ignorance: No international newspaper coverage
I think the whole Temasek Review is going ignorant as like it's whacking their claims of the ignorant Singapore government.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/08/15/no-news-of-yog-opening-ceremony-in-most-international-papers/
So it's as if a instant newspaper print is made at 0810 New York time, 1310 London time for this? Since they hate wayang so much, so next thing if there's special print, they say the Western world equally wayang?
Yes I helped out in the YOG (By order) without YOG uniform, although I would say I'm angry of how the process went, it neither right to start calling the kettle black.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/08/15/no-news-of-yog-opening-ceremony-in-most-international-papers/
So it's as if a instant newspaper print is made at 0810 New York time, 1310 London time for this? Since they hate wayang so much, so next thing if there's special print, they say the Western world equally wayang?
Yes I helped out in the YOG (By order) without YOG uniform, although I would say I'm angry of how the process went, it neither right to start calling the kettle black.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Distance fare glitches - The problematic ones
It's been 2 weeks since the distance fare has been implemented. Yet the teething problems are yet to be resolved. I'll list all the problems related to the online calculator and the scheme itself.
1) Detour/ flyover/ road diversion distance: It seems the distances tabulated for the respective bus services are based on every inch of distance they travel.
Hence whenever the buses use the flyover (the long turning distance is tabulated instead of the straight right turn), diverted due to MRT works (Bt Timah), detour (Whereby buses has no choice but to do a detour i.e. Sv 154 from Macpherson Rd to Jln Toa Payoh/ PIE towards Boon Lay), commuters are peanlised for the additional distance compared to the fare stage era.
2) Special detour (Sv 155, 961C): These 2 services makes a detour inside Macpherson Estate & Marina Centre (on weekends). In the past, the bus company does not tabulate any net distance travelled so as not to penalise commuters for the detour. The distance fare penalises such commuters for the detour.
3) Sv 160/ 170/ 170X: Right now commuters can't switch between 170X & 170. This block of services was the exempted case whereby commuter could take back the same service all these while between Kranji & JB.
The reason is simple, as the passenger flow is counted by hundreds at any time, any segregation of commuters by the original bus they took i.e. Sv 160, 170, 170X is going to create havoc at Woodlands CIQ. The priority is to clear the passengers as soon as possible (not as slow as possible) to prevent bottlenecks.
To talk abt our Singapore government being highly efficient.
4) Bt Panjang Int/ LRT stop: For some reason, commuters taking Svs like 75 to Bt Panjang Int are penalised for alighting at the actual alighting bay instead of LRT stop (0.1km difference). How could distance be tabulated inside the bus interchange is beyond me.
5) Missing bus stops: It seems Sv 60, 73, 98, 124, 125, 155, 182, 315, 317 has got only one time display of the double calling bus stops in the distance fare calculator.
The bus stops affected are Bedok Reservoir Rd, Jurong Port Rd, Jln Tepong, Fishery Port Rd, Jln Buroh, Jln Bahagia, Merpati Rd, Circuit Rd, Pipit Rd, Mattar Rd, Serangoon Gardens Circus & Tuas Checkpoint.
Seems that this fatal mistake occured as it's confused being a loop service and calling these bus stop twice. I think the programmers are thinking the bus company's info is wrong (They're the ones wrong instead!). Sv 155 indeed calls Macpherson Estate say ITE Macpherson twice en-routre Siglap Rd & Toa Payoh!
There's also an handful of bus services which has omitted bus stops i.e. Sv 43 at Buangkok MRT Station.
6) Bus stop information board display (Same as pointer 5): Transitlink did not provide separated service information for the different directions and expect commuters to deduct the distance themselves.
E.g. Sv 73 from S'goon Gardens Circus to Ang Mo Kio Ave 3, commuters need to deduct their final bus stop from the second S'goon Garden Circus call listed.
I wonder how are commuters going to know there's 2 directions to look out for (so much for the note telling people there's 2 directions. Only 1 direction info so where direction 2?). Last bus information not provided as well.
Worst being Transitlink's feedback reply tell me it's SBST's problem. They've no idea the mistake they made.
Here we go again where problems are thrown here and there!
7) Changi Airport/ Townlink services: This is very funny. Commuters now cannot tabulate their distance beyond Airport PTB 2 or central stop for Townlink services in the online calculator. I fear Sv 24, 34, 36, 291, 293, 358, 359, 911, 912, 913 commuters are charged maximum fare thanks to this glitch!
8) MRT feedering Services: Many commuters are caught unaware of this. Now those trunk services that were ex - feeder services are now charged trunk fares within the new town.
The bus company used to withdraw the duplicating feeder service to optimise resources. So now LTA wants to create wastage by introducing duplicating feeder bus service?
9) Wrongful deduction: Once an aircon bus fare was deducted from me though I was onboard a non aircon bus.
10) Parks Services: It's quite confusing that distance fare is applicable for RWS Svs 188R & 963R yet it's not offering any transfer discount for commuters taking the MRT and x-fer Sv 408/ 409 to Labordor Park/ Mt Faber respectively.
Funny thing being SBS used to offer the same transfer rebate for Parks 408 & 409 as per basic/ express services. I can understand the cease for Premium & Chinatown Direct services as they're already routed to serve the neighbourhood.
11) General distance tabulation: There's pockets of cases where commuters could likely be wrongly charged. 1 example is taking Sv 30 from Boon Lay Way/ Opp Jurong Fire Stn to Boon Lay Int. The distance is 1.1km.
Yet taking Sv 79 or 246 from Opp Chartered Industries of Singapore (CIS) along Jln Boon Lay to Boon Lay Int is taken as 2km in distance. But the reality is this bus stop is nearer than the Opp Jurong Fire Stn to Boon Lay Int!
The first problem is more damaging. How could commuters be penalised just because LTA has to divert a stretch of road for MRT works and charge additional distance due to the new road scheme?
The buses simply just follow the diverted route else how it's going to serve the mass?
But I guess it's the first time the government is tabulating the distance, as it's the task of the respective bus companies in the past.
1) Detour/ flyover/ road diversion distance: It seems the distances tabulated for the respective bus services are based on every inch of distance they travel.
Hence whenever the buses use the flyover (the long turning distance is tabulated instead of the straight right turn), diverted due to MRT works (Bt Timah), detour (Whereby buses has no choice but to do a detour i.e. Sv 154 from Macpherson Rd to Jln Toa Payoh/ PIE towards Boon Lay), commuters are peanlised for the additional distance compared to the fare stage era.
2) Special detour (Sv 155, 961C): These 2 services makes a detour inside Macpherson Estate & Marina Centre (on weekends). In the past, the bus company does not tabulate any net distance travelled so as not to penalise commuters for the detour. The distance fare penalises such commuters for the detour.
3) Sv 160/ 170/ 170X: Right now commuters can't switch between 170X & 170. This block of services was the exempted case whereby commuter could take back the same service all these while between Kranji & JB.
The reason is simple, as the passenger flow is counted by hundreds at any time, any segregation of commuters by the original bus they took i.e. Sv 160, 170, 170X is going to create havoc at Woodlands CIQ. The priority is to clear the passengers as soon as possible (not as slow as possible) to prevent bottlenecks.
To talk abt our Singapore government being highly efficient.
4) Bt Panjang Int/ LRT stop: For some reason, commuters taking Svs like 75 to Bt Panjang Int are penalised for alighting at the actual alighting bay instead of LRT stop (0.1km difference). How could distance be tabulated inside the bus interchange is beyond me.
5) Missing bus stops: It seems Sv 60, 73, 98, 124, 125, 155, 182, 315, 317 has got only one time display of the double calling bus stops in the distance fare calculator.
The bus stops affected are Bedok Reservoir Rd, Jurong Port Rd, Jln Tepong, Fishery Port Rd, Jln Buroh, Jln Bahagia, Merpati Rd, Circuit Rd, Pipit Rd, Mattar Rd, Serangoon Gardens Circus & Tuas Checkpoint.
Seems that this fatal mistake occured as it's confused being a loop service and calling these bus stop twice. I think the programmers are thinking the bus company's info is wrong (They're the ones wrong instead!). Sv 155 indeed calls Macpherson Estate say ITE Macpherson twice en-routre Siglap Rd & Toa Payoh!
There's also an handful of bus services which has omitted bus stops i.e. Sv 43 at Buangkok MRT Station.
6) Bus stop information board display (Same as pointer 5): Transitlink did not provide separated service information for the different directions and expect commuters to deduct the distance themselves.
E.g. Sv 73 from S'goon Gardens Circus to Ang Mo Kio Ave 3, commuters need to deduct their final bus stop from the second S'goon Garden Circus call listed.
I wonder how are commuters going to know there's 2 directions to look out for (so much for the note telling people there's 2 directions. Only 1 direction info so where direction 2?). Last bus information not provided as well.
Worst being Transitlink's feedback reply tell me it's SBST's problem. They've no idea the mistake they made.
Here we go again where problems are thrown here and there!
7) Changi Airport/ Townlink services: This is very funny. Commuters now cannot tabulate their distance beyond Airport PTB 2 or central stop for Townlink services in the online calculator. I fear Sv 24, 34, 36, 291, 293, 358, 359, 911, 912, 913 commuters are charged maximum fare thanks to this glitch!
8) MRT feedering Services: Many commuters are caught unaware of this. Now those trunk services that were ex - feeder services are now charged trunk fares within the new town.
The bus company used to withdraw the duplicating feeder service to optimise resources. So now LTA wants to create wastage by introducing duplicating feeder bus service?
9) Wrongful deduction: Once an aircon bus fare was deducted from me though I was onboard a non aircon bus.
10) Parks Services: It's quite confusing that distance fare is applicable for RWS Svs 188R & 963R yet it's not offering any transfer discount for commuters taking the MRT and x-fer Sv 408/ 409 to Labordor Park/ Mt Faber respectively.
Funny thing being SBS used to offer the same transfer rebate for Parks 408 & 409 as per basic/ express services. I can understand the cease for Premium & Chinatown Direct services as they're already routed to serve the neighbourhood.
11) General distance tabulation: There's pockets of cases where commuters could likely be wrongly charged. 1 example is taking Sv 30 from Boon Lay Way/ Opp Jurong Fire Stn to Boon Lay Int. The distance is 1.1km.
Yet taking Sv 79 or 246 from Opp Chartered Industries of Singapore (CIS) along Jln Boon Lay to Boon Lay Int is taken as 2km in distance. But the reality is this bus stop is nearer than the Opp Jurong Fire Stn to Boon Lay Int!
The first problem is more damaging. How could commuters be penalised just because LTA has to divert a stretch of road for MRT works and charge additional distance due to the new road scheme?
The buses simply just follow the diverted route else how it's going to serve the mass?
But I guess it's the first time the government is tabulating the distance, as it's the task of the respective bus companies in the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)