Route Suggestions (Part 4)
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Not to say 190/960 will drop in rides... There will still be load coz as what Bus Stopping said, the DTL is only medium-capacity, not trunk line... And some idiot in the past said the load will drop... Funny fuck loh
That contradiction.
Totally agree. Some people keep insisting 190 will not have much loading after DTL comes in. They fail to see that all those in CCK/BPJ who use 190 will still have to rely on bus/LRT to BPJ and then take DTL and transfer to Green/Red line for Orchard. Or will have to transfer from DTL 2 to DTL 1 for Chinatown.
If there is a fast service like 190, people would prefer taking it than doing these many rounds with trains. So 190 is here to stay and also the loading, and hence LTA better fix this service.
-
Originally posted by SBS5011L:
Idk if this is off topic anot.. but I think hougang st 21 food centre bus stop (ex-hougang south bus interchange) should be converted to an A/C road side terminal/bus stop. Better for buses 112,113,115,119. Sv 115 BC suay always have to run to shopping mall toilet or coffeeshop toilet for toilet break. As for 113, 113A can start from there, minimising U-turn time wastage. Queue berths shud also be set up. Let's see the queues how long. Same for KKKL express commuters.
Quite an interesting suggestion, but it would only work if it becomes a terminal for 115 and 119 (looping point like 173) and new BSEP bus services are introduced. It should be called Kovan bus terminal. You may give LTA this sugggestion...
-
Originally posted by 23ispolo:
Quite an interesting suggestion, but it would only work if it becomes a terminal for 115 and 119 (looping point like 173) and new BSEP bus services are introduced. It should be called Kovan bus terminal. You may give LTA this sugggestion...
There is a reason as to why Hougang South is closed down...
But it's all history since Kovan is quite well developed now...
I don't see the point in reviving it though, since it's not well accessible for both the commuters and the buses... And it does not justify for a costly project to convert it to air-con terminal...
-
The suggested kovan bus terminal can make commuters queue up, bring more business to KKKL, and also to improve 113's messy loadings there.
The terminal can serve as a roadside terminal for 113A and 115.
There is a saw berth there but it was sawed half
I notice 113A bcs always park their buses at the tampines road unused bus stop shelter and they run to the hawker centre which is a few 100m away just to use the toilets.
-
Originally posted by SBS5011L:
Idk if this is off topic anot.. but I think hougang st 21 food centre bus stop (ex-hougang south bus interchange) should be converted to an A/C road side terminal/bus stop. Better for buses 112,113,115,119. Sv 115 BC suay always have to run to shopping mall toilet or coffeeshop toilet for toilet break. As for 113, 113A can start from there, minimising U-turn time wastage. Queue berths shud also be set up. Let's see the queues how long. Same for KKKL express commuters.
I do agree that Kovan/Hougang St 21 should have a roadside terminal. No need for AC terminal, just parking bay for 3-4 buses. This will not be too expensive.This terminal can be useful to improve connectivity and modify routes such that more people will benefit. The first route that should be diverted to this terminal is sv 325. It can start at Kovan and go to HG Ave 2 and continue its route. The current loop around HG Ave 2 to HG Int is almost a waste. For people along that stop, can take 132 anyway.
With this change, 113 should be edited to ply Kovan to Serangoon via HG Ave 1 and Lor Ah Soo. This will improve frequency of 113 by a huge extent and provide commuters another alternative to Serangoon.
115 can be scrapped, don't think the minister will again create an issue around it. If they want to keep it, they should edit it to ply Defu Ave to cater to the industrial estate and bring back to Kovan MRT. Loop service terminating at Kovan/HG St 21 terminal. Then, should also add 2-3 buses to cater to Defu Ave peak load.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I do agree that Kovan/Hougang St 21 should have a roadside terminal. No need for AC terminal, just parking bay for 3-4 buses. This will not be too expensive.This terminal can be useful to improve connectivity and modify routes such that more people will benefit. The first route that should be diverted to this terminal is sv 325. It can start at Kovan and go to HG Ave 2 and continue its route. The current loop around HG Ave 2 to HG Int is almost a waste. For people along that stop, can take 132 anyway.
With this change, 113 should be edited to ply Kovan to Serangoon via HG Ave 1 and Lor Ah Soo. This will improve frequency of 113 by a huge extent and provide commuters another alternative to Serangoon.
115 can be scrapped, don't think the minister will again create an issue around it. If they want to keep it, they should edit it to ply Defu Ave to cater to the industrial estate and bring back to Kovan MRT. Loop service terminating at Kovan/HG St 21 terminal. Then, should also add 2-3 buses to cater to Defu Ave peak load.
Yeah~
-
300 route got nothing to suggest now, because the Ave 5 extension will be completed like a few months later. Then I believe all the 300 suggestions will flood in.
-
Originally posted by OMSI123:
300 route got nothing to suggest now, because the Ave 5 extension will be completed like a few months later. Then I believe all the 300 suggestions will flood in.
Yeah. But 300 should just remain the way it is - already packed to the door. Don't need to extend it.I suggest to extend 700 to CCK though via Ave 5. Suggestions already pouring in. Ha ha!
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Yeah. But 300 should just remain the way it is - already packed to the door. Don't need to extend it.I suggest to extend 700 to CCK though via Ave 5. Suggestions already pouring in. Ha ha!
700?
There are advantages and disadvantages IMO:
Advantages:
- Help relieve 190 load
- Gives commuters an alternative
- Provides CCK residents with links to Suntec area
Disadvantages:
- Duplicate 190 for some parts, thus may be low on demand when 190 is not experiencing crush loading
- CCK is running out of space
- Unlikely as BPJ new Int is due to be completed in a few years' time
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
700?
There are advantages and disadvantages IMO:
Advantages:
- Help relieve 190 load
- Gives commuters an alternative
- Provides CCK residents with links to Suntec area
Disadvantages:
- Duplicate 190 for some parts, thus may be low on demand when 190 is not experiencing crush loading
- CCK is running out of space
- Unlikely as BPJ new Int is due to be completed in a few years' time
Just my two cents, peace to you!
It was just a suggestion. I don't feel too strongly about it, but once DTL comes in, would be good if 700 is extended as it will affect loading on 700 more than 190. -
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Yeah. But 300 should just remain the way it is - already packed to the door. Don't need to extend it.I suggest to extend 700 to CCK though via Ave 5. Suggestions already pouring in. Ha ha!
Originally posted by SMB128B:700?
There are advantages and disadvantages IMO:
Advantages:
- Help relieve 190 load
- Gives commuters an alternative
- Provides CCK residents with links to Suntec area
Disadvantages:
- Duplicate 190 for some parts, thus may be low on demand when 190 is not experiencing crush loading
- CCK is running out of space
- Unlikely as BPJ new Int is due to be completed in a few years' time
Just my two cents, peace to you!
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
It was just a suggestion. I don't feel too strongly about it, but once DTL comes in, would be good if 700 is extended as it will affect loading on 700 more than 190.Trust me, take a look at CCK Ave5 lol, they already ripped half of the roundabout and put in further. Also I saw both side got bus-stop. Inside also have. So maybe. Maybe 300 will be extended to serve the extension. Also got new sliproad from ave3 to extension i believe. These just speculation and observations. Don't shoot me down lol.
700's route alr quite long. If it were to extend, CCK South Stop and North Stop need get bigger bus bay... -
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Not to say 190/960 will drop in rides... There will still be load coz as what Bus Stopping said, the DTL is only medium-capacity, not trunk line... And some idiot in the past said the load will drop... Funny fuck loh
That contradiction.
There will of cuz still be load..and there's also a drop what...
-
Originally posted by OMSI123:
Trust me, take a look at CCK Ave5 lol, they already ripped half of the roundabout and put in further. Also I saw both side got bus-stop. Inside also have. So maybe. Maybe 300 will be extended to serve the extension. Also got new sliproad from ave3 to extension i believe. These just speculation and observations. Don't shoot me down lol.
700's route alr quite long. If it were to extend, CCK South Stop and North Stop need get bigger bus bay...So you think 300 will skip Ave 2, Ave 3. Maybe they will introduce another service to cover these areas then.
-
-
Originally posted by SMB66X:
There will of cuz still be load..and there's also a drop what...
But somebody around here said earlier that 190 will have such a drop in load it will get rationalised. Lol
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
So you think 300 will skip Ave 2, Ave 3. Maybe they will introduce another service to cover these areas then.
300 must ply Ave 3 to get to the interchange like the route now. If it doesn't it might go via Ave 1 but I don't see any logic in there. But still, we will see what happens. Cheers!
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
But somebody around here said earlier that 190 will have such a drop in load it will get rationalised. Lol
-
Originally posted by OMSI123:
...new sliproad from ave3 to extension i believe....
Eeh typo. Its supposed to be Ave1... lol
-
My suggestion on extension of sv 141 and re-routing of sv 48.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=
214344502607909872197.0004e6931e8f6ab57e6a4The above map is for sv 141 between Toa Payoh Interchange & Buona Vista Terminal
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=
214344502607909872197.0004e695d741366a1dd10The above map is for sv 48 between Bedok North Depot, loop at St. Wilfred Road. The missing route of sv 48 is covered by sv 141 with a few common stops between the two to ease transfers.
141 will be controlled by BRBP & ARBP, while 48 will be by BNDEP
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
My suggestion on extension of sv 141 and re-routing of sv 48.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=
214344502607909872197.0004e6931e8f6ab57e6a4The above map is for sv 141 between Toa Payoh Interchange & Buona Vista Terminal
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=
214344502607909872197.0004e695d741366a1dd10The above map is for sv 48 between Bedok North Depot, loop at St. Wilfred Road. The missing route of sv 48 is covered by sv 141 with a few common stops between the two to ease transfers.
141 will be controlled by BRBP & ARBP, while 48 will be by BNDEP
I suppose your modified Sv 141 would be bi-directional. It seems that there are 2 portions of the route that does not follow the convention of plying the conventional xxx01 and xxx09 bus stops along the 2 directions - Beach Rd/Jln Sultan and Holland V. I feel that such 'anomalies' tend to confuse normal commuters and can be frustrating at times.
Sv 21 is a good example. I love the fast connection it gives me from Novena MRT to Boon Keng MRT but the reverse direction leaves much to be desired - the PSR -> St Mike's direction bus stop is a distance away and to add insult to injury, the amount of time wasted to wind through Jln Besar/Kitchener/Serangoon Rd which is often congested is simply a pain.
Such 'anomalies' should be avoided unless there are strong grounds for their existence. Your Sv 141 can either follow the Sv 107/M way or Sv 100 way at Beach Rd and just serve the same pairs of stops at Holland V.
As for your Sv 48, it is heartening to see that a service is plying the forsaken St. George's Estate since the demise of not-too-awesome Sv 20 many years ago. I seriously wonder how the folks there commute. The nearest bus stop along Serangoon Rd is quite far if you reside deep inside and the opposite direction stop is >700m away; walking to Boon Keng MRT is still manageable but the train system cannot bring you everywhere. Walking to Jln Bahagia across CTE is somewhat far as well and could be challenging when it rains. However, choosing Sv 48 to serve the estate might not be wise. Frequency at the looping point will be subjected to the congestion on ECP during peak hours which defeats the purpose of the amendment to provide a reliable service for the folks to get to nearby major bus stops and train stations. The slight duplication of NEL from Little India to Boon Keng might be another issue as well. It is unfortunate that the expressways bordering and canals cutting the estate (including McNair) make the roads there fragmented, posing many constraints to drawing up useful routes.
-
Originally posted by Simply.90:
I suppose your modified Sv 141 would be bi-directional. It seems that there are 2 portions of the route that does not follow the convention of plying the conventional xxx01 and xxx09 bus stops along the 2 directions - Beach Rd/Jln Sultan and Holland V. I feel that such 'anomalies' tend to confuse normal commuters and can be frustrating at times.
Sv 21 is a good example. I love the fast connection it gives me from Novena MRT to Boon Keng MRT but the reverse direction leaves much to be desired - the PSR -> St Mike's direction bus stop is a distance away and to add insult to injury, the amount of time wasted to wind through Jln Besar/Kitchener/Serangoon Rd which is often congested is simply a pain.
Such 'anomalies' should be avoided unless there are strong grounds for their existence. Your Sv 141 can either follow the Sv 107/M way or Sv 100 way at Beach Rd and just serve the same pairs of stops at Holland V.
As for your Sv 48, it is heartening to see that a service is plying the forsaken St. George's Estate since the demise of not-too-awesome Sv 20 many years ago. I seriously wonder how the folks there commute. The nearest bus stop along Serangoon Rd is quite far if you reside deep inside and the opposite direction stop is >700m away; walking to Boon Keng MRT is still manageable but the train system cannot bring you everywhere. Walking to Jln Bahagia across CTE is somewhat far as well and could be challenging when it rains. However, choosing Sv 48 to serve the estate might not be wise. Frequency at the looping point will be subjected to the congestion on ECP during peak hours which defeats the purpose of the amendment to provide a reliable service for the folks to get to nearby major bus stops and train stations. The slight duplication of NEL from Little India to Boon Keng might be another issue as well.
Thanks for your feedback. The reason sv 141 is made to ply 107 route to Buona Vista is for commuters to have the stop directly outside Lavendar MRT. For opposite direction, the stop is nearer to Lavendar MRT, so no reason to route via Jalan Sultan - but can be done. It is a small edit.
As you rightly pointed out, there is a huge need for service around St. George's estate for all the reasons you mentioned. I would not say 48 would be unreliable given it has good frequency and even today on its way to Buona Vista, you don't really observe bunching of this service. It comes out at Tanjong Katong and gets in at Suntec, so plies a small part of ERP. The main loading of sv 48 today is Little India to Marine Parade - that's why it is routed via Race Course Road to do Rochor / Little India. You can observe at times around 40-45 pax alight only at the Little India stop on its way to Buona Vista. Between Little India and Buona Vista, it is mostly SD loading that can be managed by 141 as suggested.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
But somebody around here said earlier that 190 will have such a drop in load it will get rationalised. Lol
It won't be rationalised ba...
The most spam rigids nia...O_o
-
Originally posted by SMB66X:
It won't be rationalised ba...
The most spam rigids nia...O_o
If that is so then it IS rationalise since the fleet is cut...
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
If that is so then it IS rationalise since the fleet is cut...
Do you really expect there will be no fleet reduction w/ DTL coming in? Maybe not with 190, but you think 67, 171, 700 will operate with the same number of buses? -
Aiya..no point talking about this now. Who knows 190 really cut fleet, nobody knows. Just watch