17 Dec, 02:44AM in sunny Singapore!

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

Subscribe to New Bus Services Announced by LTA/PTOs (Part 3) 1,239 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    20,425 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by TIB 585L:


      Looking at the route im guessing 90 mins runtime

      Sims Pl to UEC is quite near but the winding route,Lol

  • TIB 585L's Avatar
    9,150 posts since Apr '11
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      Sims Pl to UEC is quite near but the winding route,Lol


      The route so many turn sia. complement alot of many svc

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    20,425 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by TIB 585L:


      The route so many turn sia. complement alot of many svc

      Those private bus shuttle/contract will feel the pinch πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

    • Seriously,Between 137 & 117,I prefer the latter more

  • Vampire77lim's Avatar
    115 posts since Nov '16
    • 137 can get double dack  than  service  63 LTA said that not planning on the bus service 

  • shellstation's Avatar
    81 posts since Aug '08
    • Very surprised they touched 293. Now east loop runtime is gonna be much longer than west loop?

  • TIB987K's Avatar
    1,965 posts since Oct '12
    • Update to:

      Based on:
      Bus Services Continue to Improve Since Transition to BCM
      goo.gl/3vbJFK

      Ang Mo Kio - 860
      Bedok - 137
      Bishan - 71
      Bukit Batok - 944
      Bukit Panjang - 973
      Hougang - 329
      Punggol - 381
      Sembawang - 883
      Sengkang - 374
      Tampines - 127, 298
      Toa Payoh - 129
      Tuas - 247, 248
      Whampoa - 129
      Yishun - 807

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    20,425 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by Vampire77lim:

      137 can get double dack  than  service  63 LTA said that not planning on the bus service 

      63 because of the tight turns at Rumah Tinggi

  • CZT's Avatar
    508 posts since Jun '16
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      63 because of the tight turns at Rumah Tinggi

      I think he was previously referring to 63M, which i dun think itself warrant a DD since it usually comes with its parent 63, and the route quite short in a sense

  • AJQZC's Avatar
    1,021 posts since Sep '08
    • Originally posted by CZT:

      I think he was previously referring to 63M, which i dun think itself warrant a DD since it usually comes with its parent 63, and the route quite short in a sense

      Who knows? That dude Vampire77lim never posts in complete sentences. I don't want to bother guessing for ambiguous terms.

      Edited by AJQZC 26 Sep `17, 10:58PM
    • (Moved to loading thread)

      Edited by AJQZC 27 Sep `17, 12:53AM
  • array88's Avatar
    1,421 posts since May '14
    • Originally posted by AJQZC:

      Surprised they touched 18 instead of 4/19/37/81; not only is the route longer but there's significant duplication to 28. Perhaps modifying 38 may have been a better move?

      118's amendment seems bad, there's considerable demand along CS Ave 2 (for both 47 and 118).

      Both 137 and 298 are interesting. 20 is well expected.

      No changes to 46 with the modifications of 18 & 293, can keep and probably extend to Pasir Ris in the future.

      38 connects Simei residents (esp. those in inner roads) to Tampines East MRT. If 38 is touched, travel time would be significantly longer.

      118's skipped bus stop is within walking distance to Changi South Ave 1 iirc. If they're really lazy they can also take 47 to Ave 1 and transfer to 118.

      18's duplication to 28 is not a big concern IMO, as the routes between Tampines MRT and N3 are quite different (in fact, most of 28's loading from Tampines MRT are towards Ave 9 / St 45 only).

    • 293's amendment is really bad... Not only does it take away the only service at Tampines St 43, now St 42 residents will have an EXTREMELY long journey to/from Tampines MRT (unless they walk to Ave 7/9). Furthermore, Ave 9 (TPJC bus stop) now only has 29, and this svc is often unable to cope with the load further up Ave 9.

      I would suggest a new service (or extension) from Tampines MRT/Int, via Tampines Ave 7, Ave 9, St 42, St 43, Ave 9 and loop back. 46 can probably do the job.

      Edited by array88 27 Sep `17, 4:41AM
    • Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:

      18 is a good choice as the service was under-utilized anyway. this will give it a boost. 4/19/37 cannot be touched. Already heavy loading. 38 is debatable as it will connect it to Simei but with 18 it connects it to Tampines West like svc 28 (which is already overcrowded). 

      I am surprised with 118 amendment as well. There is need for another service in CBP and I am surprised LTA does not want to introduce new service even when all 20, 47 and 118 are  super hit in the CBP area.

      I think either 47 or 118 will have to be amended anyway. If there are new services introduced in CBP, I'd rather see them cover more areas instead of simply following 47/118's route.

  • SMB1368T's Avatar
    1,183 posts since Mar '16
  • dupdup77's Avatar
    3,058 posts since Nov '13
    • Originally posted by array88:

      293's amendment is really bad... Not only does it take away the only service at Tampines St 43, now St 42 residents will have an EXTREMELY long journey to/from Tampines MRT (unless they walk to Ave 7/9). Furthermore, Ave 9 (TPJC bus stop) now only has 29, and this svc is often unable to cope with the load further up Ave 9.

      I would suggest a new service (or extension) from Tampines MRT/Int, via Tampines Ave 7, Ave 9, St 42, St 43, Ave 9 and loop back. 46 can probably do the job.

      Hi mr array88, yes slightly agree. They did build a new bus stop at blk 444 just outside tampines ave 2 which is a short walk from the previous bus stop at blk 442 along tampines st 43. The affected residents can still take the amended 293 to tampines east mrt and transfer to mrt to reach tampines mrt/bus interchange. A bit troublesome. Cheers. Thanks.

  • SMB128B's Avatar
    4,972 posts since May '11
    • Originally posted by array88:

      38 connects Simei residents (esp. those in inner roads) to Tampines East MRT. If 38 is touched, travel time would be significantly longer.

      118's skipped bus stop is within walking distance to Changi South Ave 1 iirc. If they're really lazy they can also take 47 to Ave 1 and transfer to 118.

      18's duplication to 28 is not a big concern IMO, as the routes between Tampines MRT and N3 are quite different (in fact, most of 28's loading from Tampines MRT are towards Ave 9 / St 45 only).

      Agreed. Touching 38 may be one of the worst mistakes one could make. 

      Anyway 18 is so low in demand now in tamp, maybe this extension would help a little

      Besides, the duplication isn't a problem when u realise half of that estate only has 28. And 28 can get horrendous in freq in terms of stability. 

  • TPS Timothy Mok's Avatar
    1,159 posts since Aug '07
    • Originally posted by shellstation:

      Very surprised they touched 293. Now east loop runtime is gonna be much longer than west loop?

      People can drop at two bus stops for Tampines Avenue 7 and take 4, 8, 18, 19, 21, 37, 38 and 81 (8 routes). You can take the MRT across if you do not want the troublesome transfer. Cashless initiative is only a trial while we only adapt 90% and not 100% of the legal transfer.

  • autumncs's Avatar
    423 posts since Oct '06
    • As a resident of Bedok North St 3, I am excited to see a new full-time trunk service. (137 is the first new full-time service along B.N. St 3 since svc 225 was introduced in the 1970s/1980s)...

      But when I look at the route of 137, I rolled my eyes... The route is so winding! The route is certainly useful for short-distance trips (e.g. B.N. St 3 to B.N. MRT, Kaki Bukit Estate to Ubi MRT or B.N. MRT, UEC Rd to Bedok MRT, etc) but I guess very few people will take travel more than 50% of the route unless they want to take a good nap. 

      I am wondering about the frequency of svc 137. I hope it doesn't have a horrible frequency like svc 45 (20 minutes during off-peak). 

      I am also wondering how 137 would be able to turn right from B.N. Ave 1 to B.N. Rd after the bus stop opp Blk 546. The bus stop is very close to the junction of B.N. Ave 1 and B.N. Rd and the roads leading to the junction are often jammed.

    • Would it be a good idea to amend svc 65 to serve Bedok North Ave 3 and Bedok North Rd? Residents of Bedok North Rd would then have an option to go to Bedok North MRT or Bedok Reservoir MRT. Residents of Bedok Reservoir Rd still have svc 66 and 228 to Bedok Reservoir MRT, svc 22 and svc 66 to Ubi, and svc 21 and 22 to Tampines, so they don't really lose much. Alternatively, svc 19 or 29 can be extended to serve Bedok Reservoir Rd, Bedok North Rd, Bedok North Ave 1 and Bedok MRT to cover the deleted portion of amended svc 65, and to provide connection between Bedok Reservoir Rd and Bedok North MRT.

  • Marvel68's Avatar
    254 posts since Oct '14
    • Originally posted by array88:

      293's amendment is really bad... Not only does it take away the only service at Tampines St 43, now St 42 residents will have an EXTREMELY long journey to/from Tampines MRT (unless they walk to Ave 7/9). Furthermore, Ave 9 (TPJC bus stop) now only has 29, and this svc is often unable to cope with the load further up Ave 9.

      I would suggest a new service (or extension) from Tampines MRT/Int, via Tampines Ave 7, Ave 9, St 42, St 43, Ave 9 and loop back. 46 can probably do the job.

      IMO the 293 amendment is a double-edged sword. On one hand, St 45 residents now have an alternative to 28 as a quicker route towards Tampines MRT. On the other hand, St 42 residents might AS WELL walk to Tampines East MRT than taking the windy 293 and it also inconveniences st 43 residents who will most likely walk all the way to Ave 9 to take 28/29/293 (Blk 430) to go to Tampines MRT than taking 293 from St 42. So overall this amendment was pretty pointless...

    • So after 71, I presume that any new services that will be introduced thereafter will no longer be under BSEP since the 80 services quota had been reached?

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    20,425 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by Marvel68:

      IMO the 293 amendment is a double-edged sword. On one hand, St 45 residents now have an alternative to 28 as a quicker route towards Tampines MRT. On the other hand, St 42 residents might AS WELL walk to Tampines East MRT than taking the windy 293 and it also inconveniences st 43 residents who will most likely walk all the way to Ave 9 to take 28/29/293 (Blk 430) to go to Tampines MRT than taking 293 from St 42. So overall this amendment was pretty pointless...

      Still got one more new service from Bedok Package.

      Next year,I think amendments and shortened of service.

  • dupdup77's Avatar
    3,058 posts since Nov '13
    • Originally posted by Marvel68:

      IMO the 293 amendment is a double-edged sword. On one hand, St 45 residents now have an alternative to 28 as a quicker route towards Tampines MRT. On the other hand, St 42 residents might AS WELL walk to Tampines East MRT than taking the windy 293 and it also inconveniences st 43 residents who will most likely walk all the way to Ave 9 to take 28/29/293 (Blk 430) to go to Tampines MRT than taking 293 from St 42. So overall this amendment was pretty pointless...

      Hi mr marvel68, this 293 amendment shows the first class problem of an mrt station being built for residents and bus services have to be amended to complement it. It is always the MRT first. In any way, residents should be overjoyed at having tampines east mrt nearby them. The amendment is not totally pointless. Service 293 connects them to tampines east mrt, giving residents a choice and for those who are unable to walk much. Cheers. Thanks.

  • TPS Timothy Mok's Avatar
    1,159 posts since Aug '07
    • Originally posted by Marvel68:

      So after 71, I presume that any new services that will be introduced thereafter will no longer be under BSEP since the 80 services quota had been reached?

      they will take into consideration the trends.

      they cannot destroy the routes that whatever NEL Rationalisation / BPLRT are doing. Rationalisation is pretty sensitive nowadays.

Please Login or Signup to reply.