23 Oct, 02:22PM in sunny Singapore!

New Bus Services Announced by LTA/PTOs (Part 2)

Subscribe to New Bus Services Announced by LTA/PTOs (Part 2) 2,022 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • SBS2652G's Avatar
    336 posts since Sep '15
  • Cai Shen Ye's Avatar
    3 posts since Feb '16
    • 财神到。。。icon_lol.gif

      七个隆冬呛咚呛,我们去拜年。。。icon_smile.gif

      祝大家新年快乐,万事如意,年年有余,生意兴隆,学业进步,金玉滿堂, 岁岁平安,身体健康!icon_biggrin.gif

      Fortune god is here... icon_lol.gif

      Seven Lontong Cendol Strong, we go house visit... icon_smile.gif

      Wish everyone a happy new year, success, surplus, prosperity, improvement, abundance, peace, good health! icon_biggrin.gif

      Edited by Cai Shen Ye 07 Feb `16, 11:11AM
  • dupdup77's Avatar
    3,036 posts since Nov '13
    • All, ideally we should close this thread even though part 1 has reached 2000 messages. This thread is too similar to LTA bus service enhancement programme (BSEP) part IV. Better to have consolidation instead of 2 similar threads talking about similar items. Cheers. Thanks.

      Edited by dupdup77 07 Feb `16, 2:19PM
  • SBS2652G's Avatar
    336 posts since Sep '15
    • Originally posted by dupdup77:

      All, ideally we should close this thread even though part 1 has reached 2000 messages. This thread is too similar to LTA bus service enhancement programme (BSEP) part IV. Better to have consolidation instead of 2 similar threads talking about similar items. Cheers. Thanks.

      this thread includes non BSEP amendments and SWTs for example so should be retained

  • BusAnalayzer's Avatar
    10,384 posts since May '12
    • Parkway Parade already has 135 to AMK Hub. In fact, I'd rather 135 had been amended to Marine Tce and 76 made to terminate at UEC at the start (with the latter swapping the Tg Katong sector with the Sims Ave & Still Rd sector of Route 13).

      Replying to iveco from earlier thread. 

      I would also prefer 135 to be amended instead and 134 to be Sims Place <> Siglap Road (loop)

      135 you will see most times very few pax go beyond Paya Lebar from Marine Parade estate. The high loading point for 135 is Marine Parade <> Paya Lebar. Apart from that, 135 has mostly seated loading.

      Maybe once Bidadari comes up in 2020, 135 will see a spike, and by then DDs should be okay since Upp Aljunied will be modified. 

      Right now 76  provides important link between AMK and Marine Parade, so not sure why this should go away. There could be massive complaints. Also for YCK road, it is quicker to MP, given 43 goes via NEX that adds another 8-10 mins travel time due to congestion at NEX. 

    • Originally posted by dupdup77:

      All, ideally we should close this thread even though part 1 has reached 2000 messages. This thread is too similar to LTA bus service enhancement programme (BSEP) part IV. Better to have consolidation instead of 2 similar threads talking about similar items. Cheers. Thanks.

      The thread was created soleley for new services announced. What was happening is for every new service, there was a new thread even though LTA thread still existed. This help consolidate all in one place, so should continue!

  • sgxiaobusguy's Avatar
    24 posts since Mar '15
    • In relation to the potential amendment of bus 76, I was wondering what if it was routed from Marine Parade/Tanjong Katong onwards to serve Eunos Interchange instead? 

      i.e. From Parkway - Eunos MRT via 966 route - at least people do not need to walk all the way to the opposite eunos MRT bus stop when returning from Eunos - MP or

      from Tanjong Katong - Katong Shopping Centre/i12 area - still road south - Eunos

      since it technically links the shopping malls at Katong to Eunos MRT which is technically nearer rather than depending on 10/32 towards Dakota. I feel that both of these measures could be done to sort of "reduce" the damage done by amending 76 to play Sims Avenue - Eunos instead, albeit it taking a much longer route.

      Just my two cents worth, what do you guys think? 

       

  • SBS2652G's Avatar
    336 posts since Sep '15
    • Originally posted by sgxiaobusguy:

      In relation to the potential amendment of bus 76, I was wondering what if it was routed from Marine Parade/Tanjong Katong onwards to serve Eunos Interchange instead? 

      i.e. From Parkway - Eunos MRT via 966 route - at least people do not need to walk all the way to the opposite eunos MRT bus stop when returning from Eunos - MP or

      from Tanjong Katong - Katong Shopping Centre/i12 area - still road south - Eunos

      since it technically links the shopping malls at Katong to Eunos MRT which is technically nearer rather than depending on 10/32 towards Dakota. I feel that both of these measures could be done to sort of "reduce" the damage done by amending 76 to play Sims Avenue - Eunos instead, albeit it taking a much longer route.

      Just my two cents worth, what do you guys think? 

       

      its a definite cut alr with 134 as replacement.

  • autumncs's Avatar
    408 posts since Oct '06
    • I'm wondering... Does it make sense to combine svc 47 with either 76 or 135? Then Bedok South residents will have a direct connection to Tanjong Katong and Paya Lebar

  • Acx1688's Avatar
    13,552 posts since Nov '04
    • Originally posted by autumncs:

      I'm wondering... Does it make sense to combine svc 47 with either 76 or 135? Then Bedok South residents will have a direct connection to Tanjong Katong and Paya Lebar

      It makes much sense, tot 47 gonna link up to Paya Levar via Haig Rd but launched came up otherwise...

      LTA have a tendency not to touch/amend existing routes unnecessary and rather intro new service just to fill tt gap(189 was an exception)

      Ilooking at old bus guides, one eld realise LTA is resurrecting routes tt were once cancelled due to MRT rationalisation

  • SBS6465E's Avatar
    207 posts since Sep '15
    • Very clear LTA wants to ensure that new services avoid heavily duplicating existing services especially between MP & Paya Lebar. LTA also trying to wean off long-haul duplicitous services (like 43 & 76) so that existing resources can be re-deployed to fill in gaps. Between 43 & 76, 76 is a better candidate to be truncated. This is the big problem in the East - too many sama-sama long-distance routes, and many short-haul gaps that need to be filled. 

      With this in mind, there is an opportunity to re-deploy 76 to serve East Coast Rd or Geylang Rd. But knowing LTA, I suspect they're trying to hit their KPIs by cutting 76s' fleet. The BSEP window is closing as 2017 is coming up, so they will be very conservative I suspect over the next year. 

      Also suspect the next service on the chopping board will be 13. And a new Eunos-Joo Chiat - Marine Terrace service might be introduced. 

      Edited by SBS6465E 08 Feb `16, 10:29AM
    • Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:

      Parkway Parade already has 135 to AMK Hub. In fact, I'd rather 135 had been amended to Marine Tce and 76 made to terminate at UEC at the start (with the latter swapping the Tg Katong sector with the Sims Ave & Still Rd sector of Route 13).

      Replying to iveco from earlier thread. 

      I would also prefer 135 to be amended instead and 134 to be Sims Place <> Siglap Road (loop)

      135 you will see most times very few pax go beyond Paya Lebar from Marine Parade estate. The high loading point for 135 is Marine Parade <> Paya Lebar. Apart from that, 135 has mostly seated loading.

      Maybe once Bidadari comes up in 2020, 135 will see a spike, and by then DDs should be okay since Upp Aljunied will be modified. 

      Right now 76  provides important link between AMK and Marine Parade, so not sure why this should go away. There could be massive complaints. Also for YCK road, it is quicker to MP, given 43 goes via NEX that adds another 8-10 mins travel time due to congestion at NEX. 

      I am hoping that 135 will be extended up to Eunos via Changi Rd to finally provide that missing link between Changi Rd/Kembangan to Marine Parade. 

      Frankly, going from MP to AMK should just be done using MRT. This is LTA's thinking - to get long-distance travellers onto the MRT so that buses can be re-deployed for short-haul services. 

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    20,059 posts since Nov '03
    • Im not suprised if 137 starts from UEC..Now all jumble out..134 also starts from Sims Pl but will meet 135 along the way.

  • BusAnalayzer's Avatar
    10,384 posts since May '12
    • Originally posted by SBS6465E:

      I am hoping that 135 will be extended up to Eunos via Changi Rd to finally provide that missing link between Changi Rd/Kembangan to Marine Parade. 

      Frankly, going from MP to AMK should just be done using MRT. This is LTA's thinking - to get long-distance travellers onto the MRT so that buses can be re-deployed for short-haul services. 

      How do you propose MP to AMK is done by MRT??? 

      The easiest to do will be:

      1. MP -> Paya Lebar MRT (43, 76, 135)

      2. Circle line to Bishan

      3. NS line to AMK

      * Wow that's not encouraging enough and time saving by any means!

    • If 76 is cut, we can expect in future this trend will continue with (to number a few)

      51

      61

      67 

      all being super long services.

    • Originally posted by SBS2652G:

      its a definite cut alr with 134 as replacement.

      What's happening to 76? Cut to where? Eunos / Lor 1?

  • SBS6465E's Avatar
    207 posts since Sep '15
    • Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:

      How do you propose MP to AMK is done by MRT??? 

      The easiest to do will be:

      1. MP -> Paya Lebar MRT (43, 76, 135)

      2. Circle line to Bishan

      3. NS line to AMK

      * Wow that's not encouraging enough and time saving by any means!

      Doable. If not then CCL for what? 

      If we stick with this mentality of having long-distance direct services, we will end up glossing over all the shorter connections. That's what happened under the previous planners. After all, as you have rightly pointed out, AMK - Marine Parade is not a very high loading sector. People in the east go to Marine Parade for many things (shopping, school etc) which are duplicated in AMK. So it is ridiculous when you have direct connections to all these far flung areas when people nearby who depend on the amenities at Marine Parade have no direct access. 

  • Acx1688's Avatar
    13,552 posts since Nov '04
    • AMK to M Parade

      Depending wic part of Ang Mo Kio:

      i) 76

      ii) 55

      iii) 135

      iv) 13

      Ave 5 : 72 > 43(Yio Chu Kang Rd) or 72 > 55(Hougang Ave 3)

      One can also take 22 or 24 to transfer 55 / 76

      165/74 to 55

  • SBS7557R's Avatar
    5,318 posts since May '11
    • If you're here to encourage people to take the MRT above the public bus, I feel that you have come to the wrong forum. SGTrains was created for a reason.

      So if we cut away all the direct bus connections that are claimed to be "too long distance" in nature, what do we expect our bus network to become? Go back to the 1960s where people have to transfer multiple buses of different operators to get from one part of the island to another?

      Granted, we have a faster MRT network for long distance travel now unlike the 1960s and even more MRT lines and extensions to come by 2030. Granted, many existing bus services are still quite lengthy in nature and taking the train is certainly a faster option than using these long distance buses. However, asserting that all long distance travelling should be done by the train is unreasonable.

      Moreover, the ironic thing is that some of these so-called "long distance" services were actually created after the MRT opened, like how 51 was extended to Jurong East after merging with the old 192 in 1988 and how 14 was extended to Clementi after merging with the old 92 in 1993.

      On the other hand, I understand that 61, 67 and 961 are entirely different cases, with 61's roots being that it was already very lengthy when under STC and 961 (ex-181) was intentionally extended by SBS to Crawford St under the 1974 Bus Rationalization. Its route before 1974 from Woodlands to Commonwealth Ave (now Buona Vista) wasn't exactly direct as well, admittedly.

      With regards to 67, its old route via TPE to Little India (following 23) would not have been so long and will be minimally impacted by the upcoming DTL3 if it hadn't integrated with the old 4 in 1993, guess what, under the MRT rationalization as well!

      All in all, the splitting up of long-haul services really requires heavy consideration. Unless the demand for certain sectors of these long-haul services are really low and are unnecessary, the lost sectors would definitely have to be replaced by another service, which means more space required to park more buses. In a space-scarce Singapore, is it really possible to find more space for more bus interchanges/terminals, especially in the CBD?

      With regards to using CCL to get from Ang Mo Kio to Marine Parade, some people would prefer direct rides, even though they may be slightly slower than the train. With regards to people preferring the train over buses that don't use the expressway for long distance travelling, why are services like 25/854 so successful even though they don't use the expressway? Why don't we cut up these services and expect people to take NSL > CCL > EWL from Yishun/Ang Mo Kio to Bedok instead?

      Edited by SBS7557R 08 Feb `16, 8:38PM
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    20,059 posts since Nov '03
    • They should delete the winding sectors of 51,61 & 67 and introduce new svc to cover them instead of cutting it shorter.

  • Sbs6750E's Avatar
    1,921 posts since May '15
  • iamgoondu's Avatar
    865 posts since Dec '03
    • If the CCL and DTL frequency remains at 3min, and the train loading is still as comfortable as it is now, I will stick to train for destinations along CCL and DTL. Unfortuately there are signs that CCL frequency is going back to 5-6 minutes. 

      A longer wait time and a heavy train load will offset all benefits the conveniences the trains may have brought, and pushes me back to SBST48.

      Unless the NSEWL are just as reliable, as comfortable as CCL/DTL, and the bus/train transfers are just as easy as bus/bus transfers, we should for time being as best keep the buses.

      We must not for sake of train operation efficiencies, profit driven, worsen the train frequencies.

      Bus services still have their roles.

      However it will be unthinkable that after attracting people to switch to train, remove the bus services, and profit driving the train operations, cutting back the trains ..., sqeezing people back into sardines cans again.

       

  • SBS6465E's Avatar
    207 posts since Sep '15
    • I'm not here to advocate slaying all long-distance routes. We must strike the correct balance to ensure that we optimise our bus and rail resources. Don't forget, buses while cheaper to acquire in the short-run, have lower capacity and in the long-run are more labor-intensive and pollutive.  So, we need the MRT for high capacity corridors. Buses should then augment our MRT network by covering last-mile sectors and filling in inter-town gaps that cannot be served by our MRT or that would be inconvenient to use the MRT. We cannot maintain a bus network parallel and of equivalent scale to the MRT just for the sake of those few unlucky days when breakdowns occur. That is a huge waste of resources. 

      Services like 25 & 854 are direct high-frequency services that tightly duplicate each other to form an almost MRT-like service between Bedok, Eunos, AMK & Yishun. Expressway services are all fine.  I am against long and winding routes like many of the ones in the East where it is clear that demand is not constant throughout the route. This is a legacy in the East because it was where most of the population lived in the 50s, 60s & 70s. So many routes are long and winding because there was no MRT, and it was an unscrupolous way for all these small-time bus companies to maximise profits by packing as many people onto the bus before it would reach town. But we are living in a different era and we still have many of the remnants of this bus network in the East. So it is just ridiculous when Marine Parade has all of these connections to AMK, YCK, TPY, Bishan, Bukit Merah, when there is no or limited access to nearby estates like Chai Chee, Sims Place, Geylang East Central, Kembangan, Chai Chee, etc. 

      That is why LTA is slowly trying to rationalise this by eliminating duplicating long-distance services in order to free up space to introduce inter-town routes. With the TEL less than a decade away, it is high time LTA starts to think about this. 

      You mentioned the MRT rationalisation excercise in the 90s. It was a mistake, period. We have ended up with routes that are too long. Who is going to take 14 from Bedok Road to Bukit Merah? Who is going to take 51 from Hougang Central to Queenstown? These are routes that amalgamate many demand sectors and thus cannot serve each sector properly bacause we all know that longer routes suffer from reliability issues. That's why all BSEP routes have been under 22km. 

      Edited by SBS6465E 09 Feb `16, 10:24AM
    • Originally posted by Sbs6750E:

      Sv 68 should be for Pasir Ris. Just nice can join 58, 88, 358, 518.

      68 I suspect will be a Pasir Ris - Tamp service that will serve the burgeoning HDB estate in Tamp North. 

    • Originally posted by iamgoondu:

      If the CCL and DTL frequency remains at 3min, and the train loading is still as comfortable as it is now, I will stick to train for destinations along CCL and DTL. Unfortuately there are signs that CCL frequency is going back to 5-6 minutes. 

      A longer wait time and a heavy train load will offset all benefits the conveniences the trains may have brought, and pushes me back to SBST48.

      Unless the NSEWL are just as reliable, as comfortable as CCL/DTL, and the bus/train transfers are just as easy as bus/bus transfers, we should for time being as best keep the buses.

      We must not for sake of train operation efficiencies, profit driven, worsen the train frequencies.

      Bus services still have their roles.

      However it will be unthinkable that after attracting people to switch to train, remove the bus services, and profit driving the train operations, cutting back the trains ..., sqeezing people back into sardines cans again.

       

      Agree 100%. We must not treat people like cattle. 

Please Login or Signup to reply.