As you might have observed, right from the company started, their routes were planned in such a way that the bus straight from one town to another (whether via expressway). Nothing like its rival where the routes seems to be going in circles, stopping at every bus stop possible within one town.
When people board the bus, it is likely that they need to take the bus to go from one town to another, not within the town, which means that time expected on the bus is likely to be at least 15 minutes to an average of 35-45 minutes on the bus.
So, while they do have articulated (bendy) high capacity buses, they never had double deckers (DD), something which puzzled me. It doesn't make sense because, comparatively, if SBS Transit (SBST）operating within towns have double deckers, then why there is no double deckers on SMB when their routes are considered long distance? It just doesn't tally with its then corporate philosophy.
Over the years, it seems that SMB stubbornly refuse to purchase DD for reasons not known but I speculate that it may be due to that they do not want to 'copy' SBST to operate DD. Had SBST not have DD, I am rather confident to say that they would very likely go for DD 'to be the first' in Singapore'. (Look at their taxis and range of bus - Man A22, Hino Hs3KRKK, first to buy Citaros etc)
Nevertheless, there are a few reasons that I think SMB should get DD in their fleet
1) Being a service organisation, is it more important to be concerned with copying competitors or passengers comfort which ultimately equates to providing a better service? Is the 'face/ego' factor so important from SMRT such that they would rather let 24* more passengers (or customers as they like to call it) stand for 15 minutes per trip? 24 pax per trip x 200 trips is about 4800 pax each day affected. It may not seems a lot, but it will if you are one of the 4800.
*Comparing Volvo B9TL seating capacity of 83 compared to 0405G seating capacity of 59
(Source: http://sgwiki.com/wiki/Singapore_Bus_Specification)
Also, if there are say 70 passenger on board, all 70 passengers get to sit in the DD compared to some passengers who will have to stand when a Bendy Bus is deployed. This is quite a common situation as in a Bendy bus, you always see somebody standing because all the seats are filled up.
2) As it had been experienced and debated, articulated bus takes up more space in the bus bay making major bus stops less efficient in commuters turnover. LTA has ordered not to have any more (increase) of articulated buses. So, the situation now is that if SMB still stick to its stubborn thinking, they are just left with deploying rigid single deckers to their routes which during the peak hours, always do not have enough capacity to move the crowd.
Also, talk about the issue of a shortage of bus drivers. If there is insufficient bus drivers, then why are SMB not using higher capacity buses (1 driver : 130 passengers) and still using (1 driver: 90 passenger). If higher capacity buses are used, they will need about a third less drivers that they currently need. (2 high capacity buses and drivers serve almost the same amount of passengers as 3 single decker buses and drivers).
3) Moving back to its original philosophy - Trans-Island Bus services or put it in my terms: Across island bus services. Although it is not longer called TIBS now, the routes remains the same and DD can accomplish the task more efficiently and effectively than Bendy Buses. SBST Service 161 and 168 (Woodlands to East areas of Singapore) proves the fact.
An imaginery livery of a DD which we all hope to see it comes true.
Hence, if SMB people are reading this, I hope that while they are still making a decision on how to utilise their part of the $1.1billion from the government for new buses, they will put DD into serious consideration as with the current situation and population (expected to further increase), it is not hard to see why DD, any DD should be the choice for SMB.
No comments:
Post a Comment