21 May, 12:41PM in sunny Singapore!

Bus Terminal, Interchanges & Depots (Part 2)

Subscribe to Bus Terminal, Interchanges & Depots (Part 2) 480 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,535 posts since Nov '03
  • iveco's Avatar
    17,268 posts since Mar '04
    • Originally posted by Gus.chong:

      Noted in relation to 700...perhaps there's no purpose in making it call at Ten Mile Junction (since 184 is calling there for the same route). As I can see, there is no major change to 184 aside from calling at that extra pair of bus stops.

      I think the time is great for a merger of Routes 190 and 700.

      Also, Route 170X should operate out of BPJ if there had been enough space. It looks none the better than Route 36 in its current form as KJ MRT doesn't offer proper layover facilities.

      Edited by iveco 08 Aug `17, 8:00PM
  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,535 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by iveco:

      I think the time is great for a merger of Routes 190 and 700.

      Also, Route 170X should operate out of BPJ if there had been enough space. It looks none the better than Route 36 in its current form as KJ MRT doesn't offer proper layover facilities.

      170 blue also candidate for Gali Batu

  • CZT's Avatar
    573 posts since Jun '16
    • idk why but this Bukit Panjang ITH and bukit panjang bus park service arrangement reminds me of the YCK int and amk depot. Or maybe joo koon ITH and soon lee depot too. Like these starting points are so near to each other but they just cannot merge coz of some reason lol

  • Path Light's Avatar
    2,120 posts since Feb '15
  • iveco's Avatar
    17,268 posts since Mar '04
    • Originally posted by CZT:

      idk why but this Bukit Panjang ITH and bukit panjang bus park service arrangement reminds me of the YCK int and amk depot. Or maybe joo koon ITH and soon lee depot too. Like these starting points are so near to each other but they just cannot merge coz of some reason lol

      Space constraints, mate.

      Or what about BDK ITH and BNDEP?

  • SBS7557R's Avatar
    5,361 posts since May '11
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      75,180,184,700 all got potential to start from gali batu in future 

      180? You serious? It would skip Bukit Panjang completely as a result isn't it? That would cause a huge uproar when a good bulk of its demand comes from there.

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,535 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by SBS7557R:

      180? You serious? It would skip Bukit Panjang completely as a result isn't it? That would cause a huge uproar when a good bulk of its demand comes from there.

      Extended from the looping route la

  • iveco's Avatar
    17,268 posts since Mar '04
    • Originally posted by carbikebus:

      Extended from the looping route la

      Double loop at Petir Rd like 98 at Jurong Port?

    • Also better to let 176 terminate at the temp bus park, bypassing BPJ altogether as there are already other routes from Hillview towards BPJ. The extra space freed up can be used as a layover point for 170X.

      Edited by iveco 09 Aug `17, 2:54PM
  • array88's Avatar
    1,493 posts since May '14
    • Originally posted by CZT:

      idk why but this Bukit Panjang ITH and bukit panjang bus park service arrangement reminds me of the YCK int and amk depot. Or maybe joo koon ITH and soon lee depot too. Like these starting points are so near to each other but they just cannot merge coz of some reason lol

      More like Tampines Concourse...

    • Originally posted by iveco:

      Also better to let 176 terminate at the temp bus park, bypassing BPJ altogether as there are already other routes from Hillview towards BPJ. The extra space freed up can be used as a layover point for 170X.

      Extension of 170X to BPJ will cause a huge uproar from passengers who are too lazy to cross over the overhead bridge at Kranji MRT and hence decide to board 170X.

  • iveco's Avatar
    17,268 posts since Mar '04
    • Originally posted by array88:

      Extension of 170X to BPJ will cause a huge uproar from passengers who are too lazy to cross over the overhead bridge at Kranji MRT and hence decide to board 170X.

      The thing is 170X lacks a proper terminal. It can use BPJ as a layover point while maintaining an express sector between BPJ and KRJ. The bus stop opposite KRJ Station on the northbound side of Woodlands Road becomes the first stop while the one outside KRJ station becomes the terminating stop. No boarding and alighting will be carried out at BPJ, as the idea is simply to park there and allow the drivers to have a rest in between trips. The timekeeper can also operate out of a proper office.

    • Originally posted by array88:

      More like Tampines Concourse...

      TAM and TAC are within walking distance from each other.

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,535 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by array88:

      Extension of 170X to BPJ will cause a huge uproar from passengers who are too lazy to cross over the overhead bridge at Kranji MRT and hence decide to board 170X.

      Problem with some passengers in Singapore,Too lazy even though its just a few mins of walk.Everything want doorstep service but demand the cheapest,Demand first class svc.

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

      Problem with some passengers in Singapore,Too lazy even though its just a few mins of walk.Everything want doorstep service but demand the cheapest,Demand first class svc.

      well i wont deny, but i would say another problem is becoz of the overhead bridge some ppl lazy climb. If let say the pax are required to walk further on flat grounds without crossing road/climb stairs i think they wont mind

    • The problem with 170X is indeed a lack of a proper ter. The current situation is rly rly hectic at kranji mrt, as both the pax and bus traffic at the bus stop is rly insane, esp peak hours and peak periods. But in fact i still think a proper kranji bus ter to house 170X and CW1 is a better solution.

      Then again, my idea or the ideas you guys have brought will nvr be realised coz LTA and whatever their reason

  • carbikebus's Avatar
    21,535 posts since Nov '03
    • Originally posted by CZT:

      The problem with 170X is indeed a lack of a proper ter. The current situation is rly rly hectic at kranji mrt, as both the pax and bus traffic at the bus stop is rly insane, esp peak hours and peak periods. But in fact i still think a proper kranji bus ter to house 170X and CW1 is a better solution.

      Then again, my idea or the ideas you guys have brought will nvr be realised coz LTA and whatever their reason

      I would hoping that LTA would refurb part of Hougang St 21 to become a proper terminal and 8 bus lots.112,113 can start there to relieve more lots At Hougang Central.

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

      I would hoping that LTA would refurb part of Hougang St 21 to become a proper terminal and 8 bus lots.112,113 can start there to relieve more lots At Hougang Central.

      same here, but little hope

  • iveco's Avatar
    17,268 posts since Mar '04
    • LTA should have retained HGS as a secondary bus terminal for 132 and 151, as well as restored the latter to its original alignment via Defu Ave 1.

  • SBS 9256 X's Avatar
    2,481 posts since Sep '07
    • I dun understand the whole point of skipping the Opp Bukit Panjang Plaza/Bukit Panjang Plaza Bus stop for Svc 171/963... There are quite a number of passengers alight and boarding from that stop..

  • SMB145B's Avatar
    2,276 posts since Dec '12
    • Originally posted by SBS 9256 X:

      I dun understand the whole point of skipping the Opp Bukit Panjang Plaza/Bukit Panjang Plaza Bus stop for Svc 171/963... There are quite a number of passengers alight and boarding from that stop..

      maybe 171 will loop at BPJ?

  • BusAnalayzer's Avatar
    10,657 posts since May '12
    • Temp bus park should have housed 176, 700 and 972 instead of 75, 184 and 700.

      Lot of people from BPJ Ring road take 972 and transfer to service 180, 190, 960, 963, 975 at the stop along BPJ Road. This one stop transfer will go away and people will have to go to BPJ Interchange to change to services and walk further to bus stops.

      176 was easy as there is 963/970/973 to Hillview/Hume. 700 is also trunk so okay to start from temp bus park.

      184 serves Cashew and I am surprised they extend both 75/184 when it would make sense to terminate at BPJ interchange. I wonder whether the high number of bendies on 184 is the reason?

    • Originally posted by SMB145B:

      maybe 171 will loop at BPJ?

      Said to be in planning stage for more than a year now. Things move very slowly with LTA

  • iveco's Avatar
    17,268 posts since Mar '04
    • Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:

      176 was easy as there is 963/970/973 to Hillview/Hume. 700 is also trunk so okay to start from temp bus park.

      Hence my ideas for 974 and associated changes to 176.

      974 replaces 170X in its entirety. Being operated by the same contractor as 950, it will therefore be under the same contract area and share the same berths at JB and Woodlands crossings.

      Edited by iveco 10 Aug `17, 6:38PM
Please Login or Signup to reply.