22 May, 04:12PM in sunny Singapore!

Route Suggestions (Part 7)

Subscribe to Route Suggestions (Part 7) 1,833 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • JKYY's Avatar
    694 posts since Oct '17
  • CZT's Avatar
    573 posts since Jun '16
  • TPS Timothy Mok's Avatar
    1,251 posts since Aug '07
    • Originally posted by CZT:

      For ur cross border 250, i think CW are going strong over the second link. While i agree that there is a lack of cross border service at Tuas area, and i hope that there would be a new route that serve there soon, i rmb there was this problem that our local bus not allowed to use 2nd link or smth like this. That is why until now there isnt any public routes going there, except private operators.

      Good attempt on suggesting this idea, but unlikely this would happen for our operators

      Hi all, we would like to know that they can indicate the interest for our bus service from the designated bus terminus in Singapore to the Legoland and Hello Kitty Town for the tourists and passengers like Resorts World Sentosa. The LTA will, really promise that since the time Legoland opened in 2012.

      Edited by TPS Timothy Mok 08 Feb `18, 11:16AM
  • CZT's Avatar
    573 posts since Jun '16
    • Originally posted by TPS Timothy Mok:

      Hi all, we would like to know that they can indicate the interest for our bus service from the designated bus terminus in Singapore to the Legoland and Hello Kitty Town for the tourists and passengers like Resorts World Sentosa. The LTA will, really promise that since the time Legoland opened in 2012.

      Singaporean and Malaysian Private operators are operating numerous daily trips to and fro Legoland/Puteri Habour. A notable example would be WTS Travel. There are also other scheduled tour groups held by various communities to these theme parks, so no worries that there are no services there

  • TIB987K's Avatar
    2,254 posts since Oct '12
  • array88's Avatar
    1,493 posts since May '14
  • SMB1368T's Avatar
    1,261 posts since Mar '16
    • They should introduce 966e and skip BPJ as well...many ppl take 966 during peak hours

  • CZT's Avatar
    573 posts since Jun '16
  • iamgoondu's Avatar
    881 posts since Dec '03
    • Finally they are going to amend route 61. Tanglin Halt Close will be closed from March 11. Route 61 will be forced to go by Holland Avenue, Commonwealth Ave and Queensway. End of the super detour from Holland Avenue to Queensway, which has make this route (towards town) so unpopular for Holland residents.

       

       

    • They won't extend route 96. Frequency for 96 is so high, by extending to BM , they need to put in many new buses to keep up with the high frequency.

    • Instead of 92, can consider extending the lesser popular 191 to BM via the new flyover instead.

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,548 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by CZT:

      For ur cross border 250, i think CW are going strong over the second link. While i agree that there is a lack of cross border service at Tuas area, and i hope that there would be a new route that serve there soon, i rmb there was this problem that our local bus not allowed to use 2nd link or smth like this. That is why until now there isnt any public routes going there, except private operators.

      Good attempt on suggesting this idea, but unlikely this would happen for our operators

      So our local operators cannot have service using 2nd link but they CW can anyhow use our roads...Meaning what?LTA sleeping? 

  • SMB315C's Avatar
    2,185 posts since Sep '14
    • Originally posted by SMB1368T:

      They should introduce 966e and skip BPJ as well...many ppl take 966 during peak hours

      Back in those days when Sv966 wasn't plying Bukit Panjang..

  • lemon1974's Avatar
    9,591 posts since Dec '04
    • Originally posted by CZT:

      For ur cross border 250, i think CW are going strong over the second link. While i agree that there is a lack of cross border service at Tuas area, and i hope that there would be a new route that serve there soon, i rmb there was this problem that our local bus not allowed to use 2nd link or smth like this. That is why until now there isnt any public routes going there, except private operators.

      Good attempt on suggesting this idea, but unlikely this would happen for our operators

      there is TS6 that is going to serve 2nd link.

      Cost of operating by Singapore operators is too high...that why there isnt any Singapore operators serving 2nd link...  even for those private operators (SJE/TS8/AC7) using 1st link, dun think they are making much profit. TS1 is definitely losing money that why they have tied up with airlines. 

      there is a quota of 150 buses from each countries that can registered to serve cross border routes... SBST plus SMRT already took up 100 buses.. plus SJE, TS1/TS8/AC7.... So the balance quota is just enough for TS3/TS6.... 

  • TIB987K's Avatar
    2,254 posts since Oct '12
    • Originally posted by array88:

      Is 114 meant to replace 135?

      No. Service 114 connects future residents of Sengkang West to AMK, ITE CC and supplements any service along its route to Bidadari.

      Also, if Seletar Road extend to Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5 and upgrade to dual carriageway, then this service will use it ...

  • JKYY's Avatar
    694 posts since Oct '17
  • Lovinsgbuses's Avatar
    58 posts since Jul '17
  • CZT's Avatar
    573 posts since Jun '16
    • Originally posted by lemon1974:

      there is TS6 that is going to serve 2nd link.

      Cost of operating by Singapore operators is too high...that why there isnt any Singapore operators serving 2nd link...  even for those private operators (SJE/TS8/AC7) using 1st link, dun think they are making much profit. TS1 is definitely losing money that why they have tied up with airlines. 

      there is a quota of 150 buses from each countries that can registered to serve cross border routes... SBST plus SMRT already took up 100 buses.. plus SJE, TS1/TS8/AC7.... So the balance quota is just enough for TS3/TS6.... 

      True. But TS6 is still MIA, i suspect there are still a lot of paperwork issues behind the scenes. Rmb last year Q1 sinming paper released news abt the new TS3 and TS6 services. However, it took a year's delay for TS3 to even start ops when it was scheduled to start in April last year. So obviously there are many issues regarding cross borders.

      Note also that the newest "cross-border" service by causeway link CW7L didnt even cross the 2nd link. 2 reasons: 1. Likely the quota issue; 2. Maybe the complicated paperwork lo.

      So im guessing there are many issues having cross borders services

      Talking abt 2nd link, it is definitely not profitable. Think abt it, the closest place that would fetch pax aft 2nd link is the legoland area, and that place is rly a distance away. Given also that the vincity of 2nd link and Legoland are not close to city centre, no of pax taking the services would also be little, compared to those merely crossing the woodlands causeway....

      Hence whatever the case, i think these are the reasons why bukit merah is still kept to SBS~

  • iveco's Avatar
    17,269 posts since Mar '04
    • Originally posted by CZT:

      True. But TS6 is still MIA, i suspect there are still a lot of paperwork issues behind the scenes. Rmb last year Q1 sinming paper released news abt the new TS3 and TS6 services. However, it took a year's delay for TS3 to even start ops when it was scheduled to start in April last year. So obviously there are many issues regarding cross borders.

      Note also that the newest "cross-border" service by causeway link CW7L didnt even cross the 2nd link. 2 reasons: 1. Likely the quota issue; 2. Maybe the complicated paperwork lo.

      So im guessing there are many issues having cross borders services

      Talking abt 2nd link, it is definitely not profitable. Think abt it, the closest place that would fetch pax aft 2nd link is the legoland area, and that place is rly a distance away. Given also that the vincity of 2nd link and Legoland are not close to city centre, no of pax taking the services would also be little, compared to those merely crossing the woodlands causeway....

      Hence whatever the case, i think these are the reasons why bukit merah is still kept to SBS~

      And we can safely say SMRT is guaranteed control of Woodlands if your logic holds true.

  • lemon1974's Avatar
    9,591 posts since Dec '04
    • Originally posted by CZT:

      True. But TS6 is still MIA, i suspect there are still a lot of paperwork issues behind the scenes. Rmb last year Q1 sinming paper released news abt the new TS3 and TS6 services. However, it took a year's delay for TS3 to even start ops when it was scheduled to start in April last year. So obviously there are many issues regarding cross borders.

      Note also that the newest "cross-border" service by causeway link CW7L didnt even cross the 2nd link. 2 reasons: 1. Likely the quota issue; 2. Maybe the complicated paperwork lo.

      So im guessing there are many issues having cross borders services

      Talking abt 2nd link, it is definitely not profitable. Think abt it, the closest place that would fetch pax aft 2nd link is the legoland area, and that place is rly a distance away. Given also that the vincity of 2nd link and Legoland are not close to city centre, no of pax taking the services would also be little, compared to those merely crossing the woodlands causeway....

      Hence whatever the case, i think these are the reasons why bukit merah is still kept to SBS~

      i think that company is having trouble getting BCs to drive the bus and they need proper documents for the Bus drivers as well.  thus causing the delay... dun think they can suka suka hire China BC to drove TS3/TS6...

      CWL does not have any more quota for buses going to SG as per a report last year.. 

      actually, if possible, i think LTA would like to give up on 160/170/170x/950.. wasting too much money/resources on these routes.. but they cant do so... 

  • CZT's Avatar
    573 posts since Jun '16
    • Originally posted by lemon1974:

      i think that company is having trouble getting BCs to drive the bus and they need proper documents for the Bus drivers as well.  thus causing the delay... dun think they can suka suka hire China BC to drove TS3/TS6...

      CWL does not have any more quota for buses going to SG as per a report last year.. 

      actually, if possible, i think LTA would like to give up on 160/170/170x/950.. wasting too much money/resources on these routes.. but they cant do so... 

      Thats why everyone cant wait for the start of RTS. With that, i think it will revolutionise the way ppl cross the causeway everyday. By then buses may not be mainly relied on so much and who knows even withdrawing them~

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,548 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by iveco:

      And we can safely say SMRT is guaranteed control of Woodlands if your logic holds true.

      If follow his logic,then there is no way TTS or GAS can win Sembawang-Yishun ,Woodlands and CCK-BPJ as its stronghold. Hougang-Sengkang,Tampines and even Jurong West cause its SBST stronghold also.I tell you la bro,Bulim and Loyang awarded to TTS and GAS because they want to learn UK/Perth way and also a wake up call to the incumbents not to be complecent.

  • JKYY's Avatar
    694 posts since Oct '17
Please Login or Signup to reply.