21 Sep, 04:42PM in sunny Singapore!

New Bus Services Announced by LTA/PTOs (Part 3)

Subscribe to New Bus Services Announced by LTA/PTOs (Part 3) 957 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • gekpohboy's Avatar
    2,180 posts since Mar '16
    • 256 can be replaced with 192 meandering around Jurong West Street 62 and 63 – like 243 meandering around Jurong West Street 71 and Pioneer Road North. eg: 63 > 61 > avenue 4 > 64 > 65 > 63 > 64 > central 3. In fact, 192 is not needed at Upper Jurong Road. 192 can take over 256’s route at Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim.

      Edited by gekpohboy 17 May `17, 10:25PM
  • vicamour's Avatar
    1,475 posts since Jan '09
    • Originally posted by orange28:

      Hi dupdup77, you take svc 89E often?

      I would say that the root cause is really too many cars trying to go back to Punggol during peak hours, the buses don't really cause much delay because there's the two-lane bus bays. Nowadays, LTA got change the traffic light signal timing so that cars going to Punggol can turn right and keep on going, instead of stopping again at the bridge (which is the usual signal cycle on weekday mornings or weekends), but when they don't change the signal cycle to optimize for the flow of cars exiting TPE, then you get the massive jams ...

      The biggest problem is LTA don't build exit slip roads from TPE to Sengkang East Drive and Punggol East, thus the nearest exit point for everyone is via Punggol Rd, causing a bottleneck during peak hours. 

      Instead they widen the lanes for slip roads to Punggol Rd. Big mistake indeed.

  • dupdup77's Avatar
    3,013 posts since Nov '13
    • Originally posted by vicamour:

      The biggest problem is LTA don't build exit slip roads from TPE to Sengkang East Drive and Punggol East, thus the nearest exit point for everyone is via Punggol Rd, causing a bottleneck during peak hours. 

      Instead they widen the lanes for slip roads to Punggol Rd. Big mistake indeed.

      Hi mr vicamour, wait 1 yr 8 months more. Direct connection from Punggol central and Punggol east to TPE is on the cards.

      As for exit slips roads from TPE to sengkang east and Punggol east, they have done engineering analysis and deduced not viable due to the length required. This was reported in the print few years ago. Cheers. Thanks.

      Edited by dupdup77 18 May `17, 7:22PM
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    19,733 posts since Nov '03
  • BusAnalayzer's Avatar
    10,310 posts since May '12
    • Originally posted by dupdup77:

      Hi mr sbs6750E, yes nowadays I have already changed and toned down and I don't shoot down other people proposals anymore. I just leave it as it is. All I do is to reemphasize a point that I was correct when mr busanalyser said I was wrong months ago.

      The amendment of Sbs 129 to serve the 1 and only extra stop it left out initially but amended from 28 may 2017 goes to show that my point was correct. However unfortunately mr SMB128B goes and brings out the 3 stops which is not part of 129 route since 129 goes by Bartley underpass. This causes a mini uproar. That was really unfortunate as this did not really affect the point that a bus service will ply all the stops of its route. Cheers. Thanks.

      Well dupdup...you were WRONG then... it was introduced without those bus stops... now if 129 needs them, they have been re-instated. I am back after long and I have NO interest in arguing with your "cock-up" ways. I have better things to do. 

    • Originally posted by array88:

       

      I wonder is BusAnalayzer still active in this forum?

      I wasn't active. I was on an intense multi-million dollar project that needed my 24*7 attention. I have missed a lot of posts. I didn't get time to observe much, so no point coming here and reporting (Except a few that I will post).

  • dupdup77's Avatar
    3,013 posts since Nov '13
    • Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:

      Well dupdup...you were WRONG then... it was introduced without those bus stops... now if 129 needs them, they have been re-instated. I am back after long and I have NO interest in arguing with your "cock-up" ways. I have better things to do. 

      Hi mr busanalyser, haha. The moment you come back, you start to brandish others aside as being cock-up. Up to you lor. If you feel you have better things to do and brush all others aside and not interested in arguing, then don't rebut any points lor. Nobody forces you anyway.

      Cock-up ways or no, Sbs 129 will eventually ply the stop with effect 28 may 2017. Hooray. Cheers. Thanks.

      Edited by dupdup77 21 May `17, 6:47PM
  • Gus.chong's Avatar
    9,802 posts since Jun '10
    • Originally posted by gekpohboy:

      Anyway, I don’t think 258 would be affected. 258 has very strong loading during peak hours, and acceptable loading during regular hours, even at its unique section.

      The amendment for 258 had been confirmed by insider information (though I had some reservations on whether it would be necessary); it will not ply Upp Jurong Road along it's route, instead following 256's route from Pioneer MRT to Joo Koon. 256 will then be withdrawn and 192 will ply Jurong West Streets 61 & 62.

      Edited by Gus.chong 21 May `17, 10:32PM
  • SBS BUSES LOVER's Avatar
    1,759 posts since Dec '05
    • Originally posted by Gus.chong:

      The amendment for 258 had been confirmed by insider information (though I had some reservations on whether it would be necessary); it will not ply Upp Jurong Road along it's route, instead following 256's route from Pioneer MRT to Joo Koon. 256 will then be withdrawn and 192 will ply Jurong West Streets 61 & 62.

      such a ridiculous ammendment. 

  • BusAnalayzer's Avatar
    10,310 posts since May '12
    • Originally posted by Gus.chong:

      The amendment for 258 had been confirmed by insider information (though I had some reservations on whether it would be necessary); it will not ply Upp Jurong Road along it's route, instead following 256's route from Pioneer MRT to Joo Koon. 256 will then be withdrawn and 192 will ply Jurong West Streets 61 & 62.

      It's a good amendment, but I will wait for the official announcement to be out.

    • Originally posted by dupdup77:

      Hi mr busanalyser, haha. The moment you come back, you start to brandish others aside as being cock-up. Up to you lor. If you feel you have better things to do and brush all others aside and not interested in arguing, then don't rebut any points lor. Nobody forces you anyway.

      Cock-up ways or no, Sbs 129 will eventually ply the stop with effect 28 may 2017. Hooray. Cheers. Thanks.

      Ignoring you ... :) 

  • TPS Timothy Mok's Avatar
    1,073 posts since Aug '07
    • Originally posted by Gus.chong:

      The amendment for 258 had been confirmed by insider information (though I had some reservations on whether it would be necessary); it will not ply Upp Jurong Road along it's route, instead following 256's route from Pioneer MRT to Joo Koon. 256 will then be withdrawn and 192 will ply Jurong West Streets 61 & 62.

      No, you cannot withdraw that kind of service. It is written on the bus package that 256 and 258 is there; but 256 may be extended to Tuas South (or Bulim Industrial Estate) and handed to Bulim Bus Package. 258 has acceptable demand everyday.

      But 700 is still the same. 973 is there to bring passengers from Hume Avenue to Hillion Mall. The only bus services withdrawn is Premium 555, 563 and 598.

      Park Service got no choice due to low demand.

      Premiums are allowed to withdraw or handed to other operators.

      Chinatown Direct is always kept with the exception of CT28, which has severely low demand.

      Edited by TPS Timothy Mok 22 May `17, 10:20AM
    • By the way, is there a way that 258 can be amended via Boon Lay Way and Jurong West Street 61?

  • orange28's Avatar
    221 posts since Feb '10
    • Originally posted by orange28:

      Back to the topic of new bus routes, I highly suspect that any new/modified bus routes as a result of the new Tuas West MRT extension may be announced at their roving roadshows, the first of which is on next Monday (22 May). Plausible?

      As predicted, details of the new bus network in Tuas is now out on Facebook!

      Main changes:
      New bus svcs 247, 248 from Tuas Terminal to serve Tuas South
      Amended bus svcs 192 (at both ends of the route: Tuas and Jurong West), 254, 258 (now loops around Boon Lay like 240M)
      Elimination of bus svc 256 (integrated into parts of svcs 192, 258)

      Edited by orange28 22 May `17, 12:46PM
  • BusAnalayzer's Avatar
    10,310 posts since May '12
    • Another of my suggestion to merge 256 and 258 has finally come true. Makes absolute sense to merge the super low demand 256 with 258. 

  • Sbs6750E's Avatar
    1,909 posts since May '15
  • gekpohboy's Avatar
    2,180 posts since Mar '16
    • Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:

      Another of my suggestion to merge 256 and 258 has finally come true. Makes absolute sense to merge the super low demand 256 with 258. 

      Honestly, whoever initiated the change is very irresponsible.

      A lot of people use 258 to connect to their buses at Joo Koon Bus Interchange. Making 258 ply a longer route would result in longer travel times and longer transport fares.

      Furthermore, people are so used to taking 258 to and from Boon Lay Bus Interchange.

      Removing 258 from Boon Lay Bus Interchange would cause many people to miss their stop, when they are going to Boon Lay Bus Interchange.

      It is also going to bring back the problem of high loading on bus services 181 and 243 during peak hours, which was resolved when 258 was introduced.

      It's not as if people take 258 to Joo Koon and transfer to 256 to get to Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim.

      Why can't they just leave 258 alone?

      They could have just amended 192 to ply Jurong West Street 62, Pioneer Road North and Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim.

      There is no need to touch 258.

      Whoever initiated this change should have known the commuters on 258 better.

      I doubt that LTA had consulted the MPs and RCs about this.

      Edited by gekpohboy 22 May `17, 4:36PM
  • dupdup77's Avatar
    3,013 posts since Nov '13
    • Originally posted by gekpohboy:

      Honestly, whoever initiated the change is very irresponsible.

      A lot of people use 258 to connect to their buses at Joo Koon Bus Interchange. Making 258 ply a longer route would result in longer travel times and longer transport fares.

      Furthermore, people are so used to taking 258 to and from Boon Lay Bus Interchange.

      Removing 258 from Boon Lay Bus Interchange would cause many people to miss their stop, when they are going to Boon Lay Bus Interchange.

      It is also going to bring back the problem of high loading on bus services 181 and 243 during peak hours, which was resolved when 258 was introduced.

      It's not as if people take 258 to Joo Koon and transfer to 256 to get to Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim.

      Why can't they just leave 258 alone?

      They could have just amended 192 to ply Jurong West Street 62, Pioneer Road North and Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim.

      There is no need to touch 258.

      Whoever initiated this change should have known the commuters on 258 better.

      I doubt that LTA had consulted the MPs and RCs about this.

      Hi mr gekpohboy, so you still not satisfied with this? This is what you get when you want to get rid of 256 due to its low loading. No matter how poor a bus loading it can get, the links cannot be totally destroyed. Now they have to amend 2 services (192 and 258) to cover back 256. They just cannot please everybody. This is about as good as it can get. Cheers. Thanks. 

      Edited by dupdup77 22 May `17, 4:46PM
  • BusAnalayzer's Avatar
    10,310 posts since May '12
    • Originally posted by gekpohboy:

      Honestly, whoever initiated the change is very irresponsible.

      A lot of people use 258 to connect to their buses at Joo Koon Bus Interchange. Making 258 ply a longer route would result in longer travel times and longer transport fares.

      Furthermore, people are so used to taking 258 to and from Boon Lay Bus Interchange.

      Removing 258 from Boon Lay Bus Interchange would cause many people to miss their stop, when they are going to Boon Lay Bus Interchange.

      It is also going to bring back the problem of high loading on bus services 181 and 243 during peak hours, which was resolved when 258 was introduced.

      It's not as if people take 258 to Joo Koon and transfer to 256 to get to Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim.

      Why can't they just leave 258 alone?

      They could have just amended 192 to ply Jurong West Street 62, Pioneer Road North and Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim.

      There is no need to touch 258.

      Whoever initiated this change should have known the commuters on 258 better.

      I doubt that LTA had consulted the MPs and RCs about this.

      It's the right move. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I can counter most of the things you've said here, but it's fine. You can whine about it. 

    • Some appreciation for the folks who have done the planning for Tuas bus routes. Good routes launched. These are the kind of routes LTA should be launching to cater to new areas rather than some of the stupid duplicative routes they have launched. 

  • Gus.chong's Avatar
    9,802 posts since Jun '10
    • Whoever that makes the argument that 256 cannot be withdrawn because it is part of a bus package, it is plainly without merit. From a practical perspective, I don't see why the bus services in any package cannot be subjected to any changes even before all of them are tendered out. When new developments rise, are we expecting them to stick to the same services? If a service has low demand, why can't it be withdrawn and resources put to better use?

      As to the argument that there was no need for 258 to be amended, my position was neutral. Firstly, I highly doubted there is any need for it to stick to Upp Jurong Road when 99 and 192 did the two sided job. Looping outside of instead of going into Boon Lay Interchange is an indication that we would be seeing more of services like 177/180/983 (in fact, at least two of them would most likely retain such routes after Bukit Panjang Interchange reopened). I do not see anything wrong with that. Apart from that, I initially misconcepted that 256 is much shorter than 258 going from Pioneer to Joo Koon, that the end result was actually 258 plying 1km longer for that sector. Nevertheless, allowing 258 to connect to other services outside Joo Koon would incline me to support the move.

  • gekpohboy's Avatar
    2,180 posts since Mar '16
    • Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:

      It's the right move. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I can counter most of the things you've said here, but it's fine. You can whine about it. 

      Please, counter my argument.

      Edited by gekpohboy 22 May `17, 7:38PM
    • Originally posted by Gus.chong:

      Whoever that makes the argument that 256 cannot be withdrawn because it is part of a bus package, it is plainly without merit. From a practical perspective, I don't see why the bus services in any package cannot be subjected to any changes even before all of them are tendered out. When new developments rise, are we expecting them to stick to the same services? If a service has low demand, why can't it be withdrawn and resources put to better use?

      As to the argument that there was no need for 258 to be amended, my position was neutral. Firstly, I highly doubted there is any need for it to stick to Upp Jurong Road when 99 and 192 did the two sided job. Looping outside of instead of going into Boon Lay Interchange is an indication that we would be seeing more of services like 177/180/983 (in fact, at least two of them would most likely retain such routes after Bukit Panjang Interchange reopened). I do not see anything wrong with that. Apart from that, I initially misconcepted that 256 is much shorter than 258 going from Pioneer to Joo Koon, that the end result was actually 258 plying 1km longer for that sector. Nevertheless, allowing 258 to connect to other services outside Joo Koon would incline me to support the move.

      What are you writing?

      You are just beating around the bush (smoking).

    • Originally posted by dupdup77:

      Hi mr gekpohboy, so you still not satisfied with this? This is what you get when you want to get rid of 256 due to its low loading. No matter how poor a bus loading it can get, the links cannot be totally destroyed. Now they have to amend 2 services (192 and 258) to cover back 256. They just cannot please everybody. This is about as good as it can get. Cheers. Thanks. 

      No, 256 withdrawal is justifiable, because the loading has all these while been very low. In fact, it's obvious that 256 would be withdrawn.

      I can accept the amendment of 258 to ply Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim, instead of Upper Jurong Road, because I do not work there. A longer journey to Joo Koon Bus Interchange does not matter to me, because I do not work need to go to Joo Koon Bus Interchange.

      But, the amendment to skip Boon Lay Bus Interchange really upset me...

      I don't think anyone here understands my concerns. Maybe nobody here takes 258, that's why everyone here is okay with 258 skipping Boon Lay Bus Interchange and loop around Boon Lay MRT Station.

      But if you live in Jurong West and take 258 regularly, I'm sure you will know what I mean.

      I mean, just look at the Facebook post at LTA's Facebook page. The picture about 258 amendment attracted "shock" and "sad" responses. The people who take 258 everyday are upset.

      Nonetheless, it's okay if you do not understand.

  • CZT's Avatar
    434 posts since Jun '16
    • Originally posted by gekpohboy:

      Please counter.

      More like he lazy to counter u with long essays that even if he writes, it wouldn't affect the decision made by LTA, unless u decide to start a petition like 300G/W

      Edited by CZT 22 May `17, 7:36PM
Please Login or Signup to reply.