Distance-based throughfare & 2.5% cut in fares from July 3rd
-
....
-
Sv 43 Buangkok MRT stn bus stop en-route Upp East Coast omitted. No prob w/ Sv 27 though.
-
Damn crowded today.
Had to skip one train before I could board.
Plus fare seems to have increased by a few cents.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Damn crowded today.
Had to skip one train before I could board.
Plus fare seems to have increased by a few cents.
I take at 6am, no need to skip any.
-
OT! Wad survey lah.. Z.
Wonder what has that got to do with buses?
-
Originally posted by Charu Srivastava:
Hi I'm a Masters student and am conducting a survey for my final dissertation. Can you please help me by taking the short survey at http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=KLJEJL_be5ab302
I would also appreciate if you can pass the survey link to your friends and family to fill in as well.
irrelevant to the topic, you foreign trash.
-
should service 21 stop serving farrer park station and kitchener road already?
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
should service 21 stop serving farrer park station and kitchener road already?
Yes
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
should service 21 stop serving farrer park station and kitchener road already?
agree that 21 shouldn't make such a big detour to farrer park stn.. what about 130 and 139 at boon keng rd? personally i benefit from 130 and 139 stopping at boon keng rd albeit being one-directional only.
-
Imagine if 989 was still alive now.... i wonder how much distance it will used hehe
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Damn crowded today.
Had to skip one train before I could board.
Plus fare seems to have increased by a few cents.
you chose not to board it right? dont say damn crowded can. you chose not to board it.
-
How about 965? Won't there be more ppl taking 161 than 965??
-
Originally posted by SMB66X:
How about 965? Won't there be more ppl taking 161 than 965??
RP people prefer taking 161 to 965 is because 161 can reach Sengkang faster.I waited for 965 last Saturday during evening for more than 15 minutes and the bus was packed to the brim as it carried the pax from Sengkang. Heng ah.... 965 is not an express service or else, people will not be willing to pay very high fare by standing.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
should service 21 stop serving farrer park station and kitchener road already?
w/ CCL running now should not need a feeder bet NEL & TTSH.Mustafa tat side least got 125/ 130 to settle.
-
Originally posted by bus555:
Imagine if 989 was still alive now.... i wonder how much distance it will used hehe
~20km from CCK to TPY
~40km from TPY to Changi to TPY
~20km from TPY to CCK
-
Originally posted by n4l:
~20km from CCK to TPY
~40km from TPY to Changi to TPY
~20km from TPY to CCK
lol...i heard is the only svc with more than 101 fare stages -
Originally posted by sbst275:
w/ CCL running now should not need a feeder bet NEL & TTSH.Mustafa tat side least got 125/ 130 to settle.
yes. and on virtue that Sv 21 has a longer route so it should be cut short leaving anyone who needs to go kitchener road to transfer to Sv 125 and for those to boon keng or NEL to use Sv 31 or Sv 985.
-
Hi guys I have a big query as i think i'm being cheated here...
SBS Svc 179 (boonlay-NTU) and SMRT Svc 169 (AMK-WDL) are both similar in terms of both being trunk services right?
If so, why is it that based on the apparent 'distance' fare, it only costs 3cents on 179 to get from pioneer mrt to NTU canteen A after transfer from mrt (which is a heck of a walk of about 6 stops), but it costs 20cents on 169 to get from AMK hub to the busstop opp Mayflower sec after a bus transfer (which is merely 4 stops away and only a 10-15min walk)?
WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS 600+% EXTRA CHARGE??????
-
Originally posted by SMRT 32373238:
Hi guys I have a big query as i think i'm being cheated here...
SBS Svc 179 (boonlay-NTU) and SMRT Svc 169 (AMK-WDL) are both similar in terms of both being trunk services right?
If so, why is it that based on the apparent 'distance' fare, it only costs 3cents on 179 to get from pioneer mrt to NTU canteen A after transfer from mrt (which is a heck of a walk of about 6 stops), but it costs 20cents on 169 to get from AMK hub to the busstop opp Mayflower sec after a bus transfer (which is merely 4 stops away and only a 10-15min walk)?
WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS 600+% EXTRA CHARGE??????
1st thing 1st, your pt A to pt B?
I can only say for now, your pt A to pt B fare is now personalised.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
yes. and on virtue that Sv 21 has a longer route so it should be cut short leaving anyone who needs to go kitchener road to transfer to Sv 125 and for those to boon keng or NEL to use Sv 31 or Sv 985.
Furthermore, it's in e long run tat off peak MRT freq could be improved.Seriously speaking, SMRT's reply past few days w/ thesis of tat simi sq m space ratio is flawed if one really use case study to throw back.
Ppl carry tis and tat, all takes up space.
-
Originally posted by SMRT 32373238:
Hi guys I have a big query as i think i'm being cheated here...
SBS Svc 179 (boonlay-NTU) and SMRT Svc 169 (AMK-WDL) are both similar in terms of both being trunk services right?
If so, why is it that based on the apparent 'distance' fare, it only costs 3cents on 179 to get from pioneer mrt to NTU canteen A after transfer from mrt (which is a heck of a walk of about 6 stops), but it costs 20cents on 169 to get from AMK hub to the busstop opp Mayflower sec after a bus transfer (which is merely 4 stops away and only a 10-15min walk)?
WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS 600+% EXTRA CHARGE??????
because the travel distance prior to transferring to Sv 179 is longer than 25.2km, thus decimating the cost of the fare on Sv 179 (3 fare bands for 2.4km at 1¢ per band).
as for Sv 169, it's because your prior traveling distance before the transfer to Sv 169 is between 2.6km and 3.2km (which costs 71¢), causing your cumulative distance after the 1.7km ride on Sv 169 to fall into the 91¢ band.
look at the fare as it is for the whole journey, not for every trip that makes up the journey.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
because the travel distance prior to transferring to Sv 179 is longer than 25.2km, thus decimating the cost of the fare on Sv 179 (3 fare bands for 2.4km at 1¢ per band).
as for Sv 169, it's because your prior traveling distance before the transfer to Sv 169 is between 2.6km and 3.2km (which costs 71¢), causing your cumulative distance after the 1.7km ride on Sv 169 to fall into the 91¢ band.
look at the fare as it is for the whole journey, not for every trip that makes up the journey.
to add on.The fares on 169 or 179, is macham 'top up' to make up to your final fare based on your total travelling distance.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
because the travel distance prior to transferring to Sv 179 is longer than 25.2km, thus decimating the cost of the fare on Sv 179 (3 fare bands for 2.4km at 1¢ per band).
as for Sv 169, it's because your prior traveling distance before the transfer to Sv 169 is between 2.6km and 3.2km (which costs 71¢), causing your cumulative distance after the 1.7km ride on Sv 169 to fall into the 91¢ band.
look at the fare as it is for the whole journey, not for every trip that makes up the journey.
Wow thanks Tamago... I didnt know about that... So I can safely say that transfers for very long distance trips is cheaper than short distance ones which are also cheaper than long distance trips with no transfers at all?
Where did u get to understand the fare structure anyway? I've been reading up the brohures and they barely tell us anything and so far i seem to be paying more than previously
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
Furthermore, it's in e long run tat off peak MRT freq could be improved.Seriously speaking, SMRT's reply past few days w/ thesis of tat simi sq m space ratio is flawed if one really use case study to throw back.
Ppl carry tis and tat, all takes up space.
not forgetting, japanese count loading differently. our situation is close to 180% loading on their terms, which they're also experiencing during peak hours (180%). ask TIB1224Y for more info :)
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
not forgetting, japanese count loading differently. our situation is close to 180% loading on their terms, which they're also experiencing during peak hours (180%). ask TIB1224Y for more info :)
if we could, Taipei is the best case study.