LTA Central Planning (Phase I) – Splitting ultra-long routes
-
Originally posted by tanjun:
I personally think that the authorities should really collect feedbacks or even observe the demand patterns before they really make the cut.
Take for example, if 147 is going to make the cut, where do you make the cut?
New Bridge Road terminal or Queen Street terminal or even Serangoon Interchange as proposed.
For this route, it is sure to affect many people especially the elderly.
147 was proposed to be a Hougang Int - Serangoon Ctrl (Loop) when NEL started.
-
hmmm to me i see no faster travel time in it e.g take 51 from HG to JE and i take 151-154-97 is all most the same time is does not save time in one fact. mainly LTA just want people to take the MRT - Messes Rapid Transit
-
cut sv 61, 67, 190, 960, 961, 963, 966, 980 the other half portion give sbs
-
I still remember the former service 85 (Sengkang to Harbourfront). After the NEL rationalisation the route was withdrawn. However due to complaints regarding loss of connectivity along the Rivervale areas service 119 was re-introduced to ply between Sengkang to Kovan hub.
-
Originally posted by TIB433S:
In my opinion, cutting a few of these services do indeed benefit the LTA. BUT the inconvenience they cause to the public is worse than their intended benefit. Let's take a few services for example and maybe some things I would suggest if necessary:
If Service 16 were to be cut, it is impossible because though the people travelling to the east (meaning Bedok and Marine Parade) from Bukit Merah is not so demanding, there are indeed people from the Bedok, Marine Parade, Joo Chiat and Dunman stretch who have to travel to places like Nicoll Highway and Orchard. Unless they do shorten 16 to the Stadium Link OR split it into 2 services which terminate at Stadium Link and Marina Centre OR in an extent the commuters are forced to take the CCL.
And what's more, what will happen to the drivers of these affected services? If 61 were to be affected, will some drivers be forced to be SMRT Standbys or will they have the alternative choice to go over to an SBST service that follows part of 61's route?
1. Dont forget people in the Tiong Bahru area though, the only hope for them to MP and bedok is this bus, and the fastest link to town, cut this service off, people will complain, and judging by the way it goes, should be the fastest one to Mountbatten/TK area
2) If 61 is affected, where is the place it will end at?
-
Originally posted by One Harmonius Blend:
1. Dont forget people in the Tiong Bahru area though, the only hope for them to MP and bedok is this bus, and the fastest link to town, cut this service off, people will complain, and judging by the way it goes, should be the fastest one to Mountbatten/TK area
2) Woodlands* can control either 853 or 854, should 61 be affected
* if 61 is still under w'lands control
take MRT from tiong bahru to mountbatten station and transfer 31.
-
Originally posted by jayh272416:
these are the services which i believe will not be cut
172 180 161 168 966 85 39 858 969 965 700 190 960
i just feel that they should put bus lanes on highways... gives ppl more reason to ditch their cars for the bus.
hey.. do u drive a car or use the expressway frequently? bus lane on expressways?? u sure anot..?? bus networks are so poor, overcrowded, expensive... who will want to take a bus given a choice?
theres sooo few services on the expressway and most expressway services has poor frequencies.. islandwide, only TPE from Punggol Road to Tampines Ave 10 has the most public buses than other stretches. even so, their coming and goings are so far in between..
also, bus operators dont like to operate trunk services which uses expressways. -
Originally posted by SBS7485P:
take MRT from tiong bahru to mountbatten station and transfer 31.
Never heard of this MRT station before, care to elaborate?
Cut off 16, the people's hope of wanting to reach town in the fastest manner will be gone, along with MP and JC
-
Originally posted by One Harmonius Blend:
Never heard of this MRT station before, care to elaborate?
Cut off 16, the people's hope of wanting to reach town in the fastest manner will be gone, along with MP and JC
mountbatten will be opened on 17 apr 2010 CCL. MRT will be faster than sv16.
-
Originally posted by SBS7485P:
mountbatten will be opened on 17 apr 2010 CCL. MRT will be faster than sv16.
but think, will people from Bukit Merah want to take MRT all the way to BV, and then transfer to Mountbatten? no right and Stadium-wise, it ain't going to make things better, especially people from the Henderson area
-
Originally posted by AEW5001:
i was thinking if LTA shld just stay out of this and let both companies decide whether any adjustments are required or not..
I fully agree. I don't think LTA knows any better than SBST and SMRT in terms of identifying the current issues of public transport and to think of effective solutions to improve. Whatever decision made should strike a balance between commuter needs and companies viabilities - vs service, fares, concession and the company's economic viabilities. I believe our two public bus operators are currently doing fine though there's still room for improvement. The intro of Short-Working trips (SWT) is a good move by our bus operators to improve service during peak hours and deserves praise. -
Originally posted by SBS7485P:
cut sv 61, 67, 190, 960, 961, 963, 966, 980 the other half portion give sbs
then SMRT stands to lose out a lot.
the next thing we know, maybe jurong east also comes under SMRT...
-
Originally posted by One Harmonius Blend:
but think, will people from Bukit Merah want to take MRT all the way to BV, and then transfer to Mountbatten? no right and Stadium-wise, it ain't going to make things better, especially people from the Henderson area
Suggested route to take MRT from Redhill, transfer to NEL at Outram Park, then transfer again at Dhoby Ghaut for the CCL. -
Originally posted by SMB32T:
Suggested route to take MRT from Redhill, transfer to NEL at Outram Park, then transfer again at Dhoby Ghaut for the CCL.
Nope. Suggested way should be taking MRT from Redhill straight to Paya Lebar then transfer CCL.
Originally posted by One Harmonius Blend:but think, will people from Bukit Merah want to take MRT all the way to BV, and then transfer to Mountbatten? no right and Stadium-wise, it ain't going to make things better, especially people from the Henderson area
This is not sensible. Because, there is no way that Harbourfront can connect towards East in a forseeable future. So, by taking BNV route = must go through Botanic Gardens, Bishan, Serangoon, Paya Lebar then destination (Skipped those less prominent stations)
-
Originally posted by Samuel Lee:
Nope. Suggested way should be taking MRT from Redhill straight to Paya Lebar then transfer CCL.
This is not sensible. Because, there is no way that Harbourfront can connect towards East in a forseeable future. So, by taking BNV route = must go through Botanic Gardens, Bishan, Serangoon, Paya Lebar then destination (Skipped those less prominent stations)
other than the above and backtracking to buona vista, going to City Hall and walking to Esplanade MRT will work better, especially when the Raffles City B2 Link is completed.
-
Originally posted by SMB32T:
Suggested route to take MRT from Redhill, transfer to NEL at Outram Park, then transfer again at Dhoby Ghaut for the CCL.That's going to waste even more time.
No people from henderson would be interested in wasting their time, when there is a direct bus.
-
Originally posted by One Harmonius Blend:
That's going to waste even more time.
No people from henderson would be interested in wasting their time, when there is a direct bus.
but if it's longer and cheaper,i think people won't mind.
-
Originally posted by One Harmonius Blend:
That's going to waste even more time.
No people from henderson would be interested in wasting their time, when there is a direct bus.
Let me own you now about your Service 16,
MRT CHANGE BUS REDHILL/TIONG BAHRU - MOUNTBATTEN
if u stay at mountbatten take train from redhill/tiong bahru to kallang 14-16mins and transfer 12, 31, 32, 33 to mountbatten or old airport 6mins according to iris Journey Planner from kallang stn to mountbatten voc sch. 22MINS
SV 16 HENDERSON - MARINE PARADE
according to iris Journey Planner, sv16 takes you 48mins from henderson (henderson pr sch) to mountbatten (old airport rd blk 39). 48MINS
SV14/196 JLN BT MERAH - MOUNTBATTEN
in fact according to iris journey planner, taking sv14, 196 from jln bt merah nearby to mountbatten rd (mountbatten voc sch) takes you only 40mins. 40MINS
MRT CHANGE BUS, REDHIL/TIONG BAHRU - MARINE PARADE
from redhill/tiong bahru to paya lebar is 18-20min transferring to sv43, 76, 135 to marine parade (opp blk 72) at paya lebar (paya lebar stn) takes another 9min according to iris journey planner. 29MINS
SV 16 HENDERSON - MARINE PARADE
now from henderson, according to iris journey planner taking sv16 takes you 59mins from henderson rd (henderson pr sch) to marine parade (opp blk 72) 59MINS
SV196/197 JLN BT MERAH - MARINE PARADE
now according to iris journey planner from jln bt merah to marine parade rd (opp blk 72) takes you 50mins. 50MINS
Fact #1: SV 16 is the slower mode even if commuters have to take a bus from henderson/jln bt merah to redhill or tiong bahru mrt.
Fact #2: There are alternative services to SV 16 which are faster
Fact #3: One Harmonious Blend is wrong.
I believe iris Journey Planner is accurate in travel times.
-
indeed. travelling by train is very fast provided that there ain't many transfers to make. and you have to walk more.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
indeed. travelling by train is very fast provided that there ain't many transfers to make. and you have to walk more.
walking is good for exercising.. especially for peeps using adult fare.then again throughfare is coming so....
-
haizz, i see something abt this:
LTA split up long routes = more transfers = more money must pay = more confusion = more complaints.
to me, splitting up SHOULD not be necessary what...seriously, they call this promoting public transportation, i dont think so. 'improve not jeopardise'. i feel the current routes are good enough...
-
Originally posted by scaniaB7RLE:
haizz, i see something abt this:
LTA split up long routes = more transfers = more money must pay = more confusion = more complaints.
to me, splitting up SHOULD not be necessary what...seriously, they call this promoting public transportation, i dont think so. 'improve not jeopardise'. i feel the current routes are good enough...
+1.After all,if we have to make transfers,there would be more fare and waitng time..... they should at least make transfer rebates better...
-
Originally posted by scaniaB7RLE:
haizz, i see something abt this:
LTA split up long routes = more transfers = more money must pay = more confusion = more complaints.
to me, splitting up SHOULD not be necessary what...seriously, they call this promoting public transportation, i dont think so. 'improve not jeopardise'. i feel the current routes are good enough...
+2
Things should stay where they are unless changes are necessary to meet the demands of the commuters.
-
Originally posted by deskoh91:
other than the above and backtracking to buona vista, going to City Hall and walking to Esplanade MRT will work better, especially when the Raffles City B2 Link is completed.
Usually people wont want and used to do such non-integrated interchanges, becuase this would be the first ever case of non - integrated interchange in MRT history. Well, not so, but actually technically is one such. Maybe the official first such example is at Bukit Panjang, which seriously, I wonder why the LRT station has 4 lifts for both sides (2 platforms), could not they just shutdown 1 from each side and renovate the lift to the basement transfer hall, and upon completetion, close down the remaining 2 lifts for such and ta da --- intergrated interchange, slightly better than CCK, but not as good as Sengkang / Punggol. Such a simple thing also cannot think, LTA you SUCK!
-
Originally posted by scaniaB7RLE:
haizz, i see something abt this:
LTA split up long routes = more transfers = more money must pay = more confusion = more complaints.
to me, splitting up SHOULD not be necessary what...seriously, they call this promoting public transportation, i dont think so. 'improve not jeopardise'. i feel the current routes are good enough...
- 1, because more money side is going to change soon, the fare structure is likely to have a big revamp, just that they should have announce the new fare structure before announcing such intentions.
This is an example of satisifed on current situation and did not bother to improve on existing products. Sigh......
Do you think that the current service is perfect? No, I dont think so. So in fact I am happy to hear about changes, and that has nothing to do with my political affliation.
But my main concern is they should not split for the sake of split. Those buses that are ultra long but mainly expressway should have remain as it is.
I understand the fellow forumers concerned about the profitiblity and even if initally it looks cheaper fares (Or the same), but in the end shorter routes = profit not as before because a bus operator in per passenger theory is that a need to operate 2 buses or more (from 2 or more services) in order to reach a ultra long destination (Each passenger got different destinations and so you roughly get my idea) compared to 1 if the "direct service" are cutted down or axed.
However, the reason why I put "direct service" is that these services are direct as in no transfer involved and one can sleep in the bus peacefully etc but consider this:
Service 81, Tampines, Pasir Ris, Serangoon. Seriously, do you think this way is direct towards Serangoon? Maybe for Tampines - Pasir Ris or Pasir Ris - Serangoon is direct.
I also understand that earlier someone pointed out that more new services = need of more bus berths in the interchanges despite the number of bus plying in a shorter route is likely to be reduced, in order to ply the other new services, and of course with the continuous buying of new buses is adding the problem as well which was stated of a formula of headway and such, and I tried to understand it as more new services with different frequencies due to different level of demands = more of the time where the buses coming in and out of the interchange instead of the current system where more buses are outside of the interchanges and thus = need of more berths to cater the services and it can be a problem as well.
Maybe, someone should have created a more complete post regarding the proposed amendment's pros and cons, compared to current system pros and cons, if possible, just like other forumers, compare with their suggested alternatives based on their observation in anywhere else, such as Japan but not limited to. And from there, we can see the pros and cons of each approach and maybe if possible, suggest to LTA if this amendments is so suck...