Anyone can answer this:
Is LTA's insistence that all trunk bus services leave the terminals/ints at 10mins making PTOs unable to put out more SWTs?
Just some thoughts...
I wonder why can't they expand the interchanges instead...Not all but those majors one at least..
Originally posted by TIB429E:Just some thoughts...
I wonder why can't they expand the interchanges instead...Not all but those majors one at least..
i wonder why are they building the interchanges so small?
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
take the aircon bus hubs as example (several of which are major interchanges). the building structure is already fixed there and is integrated with the shopping mall. also the pillars distance apart, ceiling height are already all fixed and cant be changed much unless have to demolish and rebuild. so how to expand these interchanges? and also if the interchange becomes bigger hence more buses going in and out, it may also congest the interchange driveway access. so 1 probable way is to built some more bus hubs next to mrt stations and integrate with office or shopping malls.
Hmm like Boon Lay, prob expand the hub to the otherside? And from there, you move those shops over in order to get more spaces for the interchange. Is it possible?
Hmm still got Woodlands n Tampines untouch :o Hope they do expand bigger than the before ones...
Originally posted by Acx1688:Anyone can answer this:
Is LTA's insistence that all trunk bus services leave the terminals/ints at 10mins making PTOs unable to put out more SWTs?
Yes that's why you dont see any SWT introduced in the last few months - this should be the reason.
Originally posted by SMB145B:i wonder why are they building the interchanges so small?
It is okay unless they build new ones. For instance, they are building one at Buangkok MRT. Then at Punggol Matilda. These two interchanges will take care of the issues at least around the NEL.
Like wise there need to be new interchanges in the east to supplement Tampines, Pasir Ris and Bedok. In the west, Joo Koon might already ease the pressure off Boon Lay and Jurong East because it seems to be having quite a few slots.
Originally posted by Acx1688:Tot 3354 belongs to 12?! But seen v regularly on 196
I don't think it is perm. It is still SP.
A bit OT on bus interchanges/terminals...
In london, only major places have a "bus terminal" where a few routes gather...
If not, it will be just a pole and a road dyed red that says bus stand, normally it will have space for 2 buses, not more than tt...
same for tt in Hong Kong, Barcelona, Paris, Madrid, Zurich, Vienna, Salzburg, Amsterdam, etc...
We are too concentrated on Hub n spoke till it is constricting the existing bus interchange from expanding...
Tot LTA officials always go overseas for studies on public transport, obviously, they have missed out on the point : NO need to have grand integrated structures for bus terminals/interchanges...
Simple is best... Terminals/Interchanges built too many are white elephants...
if you want to have integrated facilities, follow Hong Kong, 2 - 3)ie from Ground floor to level 2) levels of strategic buildings(most are near MTR stations) are left empty for buses (GMB n public buses) to terminate...
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Yes that's why you dont see any SWT introduced in the last few months - this should be the reason.
Tot Minister say in either parliament/public or somewhere tt LTA should focus on bus services where in between of a route is where the bulk of the commuters boarding/alighting rather than at the beginning?!
Some organisation is not in sync with policies...
Originally posted by Acx1688:A bit OT on bus interchanges/terminals...
In london, only major places have a "bus terminal" where a few routes gather...
If not, it will be just a pole and a road dyed red that says bus stand, normally it will have space for 2 buses, not more than tt...
same for tt in Hong Kong, Barcelona, Paris, Madrid, Zurich, Vienna, Salzburg, Amsterdam, etc...
We are too concentrated on Hub n spoke till it is constricting the existing bus interchange from expanding...
Tot LTA officials always go overseas for studies on public transport, obviously, they have missed out on the point : NO need to have grand integrated structures for bus terminals/interchanges...
Simple is best... Terminals/Interchanges built too many are white elephants...
if you want to have integrated facilities, follow Hong Kong, 2 - 3)ie from Ground floor to level 2) levels of strategic buildings(most are near MTR stations) are left empty for buses (GMB n public buses) to terminate...
Not true for HK.
Hub and spoke? No. In all public housing estates with a "The Link" mall nearby an integrated transport hub, consisting of a bus terminal, a taxi stand and a minibus terminal, alongside major interchanges near MTR stations. This is as opposed to SG having bus ints at some MRT stations with bus services from there connecting all other public housing.
HK is not hub and spoke as most, if not all of these bus terminals will have at least one service that either plies to the city, or anywhere near the city.
And I believe SG should have more integrated hubs. In land scarce SG it is viable to use space efficiently, such as building up. Good to see SG is doing the correct thing. Sengkang, Serangoon and TPY are all very successful examples which serves as good as those in HK.
Indeed, too many will also not being beneficial, as much as having too little (like SG). Like the Kin Ming Bus Ter which was literally abandoned until 2010 or so.
Originally posted by SMB128B:Not true for HK.
Hub and spoke? No. In all public housing estates with a "The Link" mall nearby an integrated transport hub, consisting of a bus terminal, a taxi stand and a minibus terminal, alongside major interchanges near MTR stations. This is as opposed to SG having bus ints at some MRT stations with bus services from there connecting all other public housing.
HK is not hub and spoke as most, if not all of these bus terminals will have at least one service that either plies to the city, or anywhere near the city.
And I believe SG should have more integrated hubs. In land scarce SG it is viable to use space efficiently, such as building up. Good to see SG is doing the correct thing. Sengkang, Serangoon and TPY are all very successful examples which serves as good as those in HK.
Indeed, too many will also not being beneficial, as much as having too little (like SG). Like the Kin Ming Bus Ter which was literally abandoned until 2010 or so.
Bro, i meant HK NOT HUB n SPOKE style lah...
Still prefer HK's way of putting up their bus services...
Sin Ming Bus Ter was "abandoned" as CSS stop operating their svcs...
Originally posted by Acx1688:Bro, i meant HK NOT HUB n SPOKE style lah...
Still prefer HK's way of putting up their bus services...
Sin Ming Bus Ter was "abandoned" as CSS stop operating their svcs...
Haha sorry misinterpreted, from your line on London I tot was like SG sorry for mistake!
Same here, I think HK routing beats SG big time. Many services from each and every estate with less buses and much mote direct and focused vs a route of 20+ buses looping around everywhere before finally reaching its destination (like after eternity). Which appeals to car users more? I leave it to you all to decide, but it should be damn obvious.
Originally posted by SMB128B:Haha sorry misinterpreted, from your line on London I tot was like SG sorry for mistake!
Same here, I think HK routing beats SG big time. Many services from each and every estate with less buses and much mote direct and focused vs a route of 20+ buses looping around everywhere before finally reaching its destination (like after eternity). Which appeals to car users more? I leave it to you all to decide, but it should be damn obvious.
Just like las week, Gloucester Rd have traffic accident, commuters can use other forms to get around, MTR/Ferry(only in HK)
In SG, train break down confirm DIE even though that there's FREE shuttle...
Worse, not every part of SG have links to city, Yew Tee/Bukit Gombak to name a few doesn't have direct links...
The above mentioned areas have sufficient population to justify a terminal for bus ridership
Originally posted by Acx1688:Just like las week, Gloucester Rd have traffic accident, commuters can use other forms to get around, MTR/Ferry(only in HK)
In SG, train break down confirm DIE even though that there's FREE shuttle...
Worse, not every part of SG have links to city, Yew Tee/Bukit Gombak to name a few doesn't have direct links...
The above mentioned areas have sufficient population to justify a terminal for bus ridership
If that's the case then Simei should have one too...
Ease the traffic of the already-bursting Tampines. And perhaps can have services to city (not CBD as alr have 541) or other towns!
And isn't Eastpoint mall under renovation now? Strike while the iron's hot!
Originally posted by SMB128B:If that's the case then Simei should have one too...
Ease the traffic of the already-bursting Tampines. And perhaps can have services to city (not CBD as alr have 541) or other towns!
And isn't Eastpoint mall under renovation now? Strike while the iron's hot!
Yah...
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:It is okay unless they build new ones. For instance, they are building one at Buangkok MRT. Then at Punggol Matilda. These two interchanges will take care of the issues at least around the NEL.
Like wise there need to be new interchanges in the east to supplement Tampines, Pasir Ris and Bedok. In the west, Joo Koon might already ease the pressure off Boon Lay and Jurong East because it seems to be having quite a few slots.
woodlands is bursting, sembawang is empty, yishun is crowded.
962 and 964 could be possible
962 Sembawang Int - Woodlands (loop)
964 Sembawang Int - Woodlands Ave 9 (loop)
963 and 963R to start at Sembawang instead of Woodlands?
852, 857 and 860 could also be extended to Sembawang
Originally posted by SMB145B:woodlands is bursting, sembawang is empty, yishun is crowded.
962 and 964 could be possible
962 Sembawang Int - Woodlands (loop)
964 Sembawang Int - Woodlands Ave 9 (loop)
963 and 963R to start at Sembawang instead of Woodlands?
852, 857 and 860 could also be extended to Sembawang
Woodlands North Interchange coming up in URA plan...
Originally posted by SMB145B:woodlands is bursting, sembawang is empty, yishun is crowded.
962 and 964 could be possible
962 Sembawang Int - Woodlands (loop)
964 Sembawang Int - Woodlands Ave 9 (loop)
963 and 963R to start at Sembawang instead of Woodlands?
852, 857 and 860 could also be extended to Sembawang
964 nope. There is high demand from Woodlands interchange and high demand at Admiralty MRT. 962 can, 964 better start from Woodlands. 963 can.
965/969 cannot. People going friday prayers depends on 965, people schooling at AISS living in Woodlands depend on 965. People going to Chong Pang from Woodlands needs 969 and also those ITE students from Simei depends highly on this bus to get them back to Woodlands/Admiralty.
966 can start from Sembawang, 960 also. 961 better dont, route is long enough. 966/960/963 can enhance connectivity to BPJ, Worst case 171 extend to Sembawang.
The rest must stay
Originally posted by SMB145B:woodlands is bursting, sembawang is empty, yishun is crowded.
962 and 964 could be possible
962 Sembawang Int - Woodlands (loop)
964 Sembawang Int - Woodlands Ave 9 (loop)
963 and 963R to start at Sembawang instead of Woodlands?
852, 857 and 860 could also be extended to Sembawang
Woodlands North Interchange should take care of Woodlands, and more space at Sembawang should take care of Yishun for now. In future, I believe Simpang will have a bus interchange, so some Yishun services might start from there.
For now, quick fix 39 should be extended to Sembawang. 962/964/963 is a strict no according to me.
I would not touch 857/860 also. Already too much crowd to disturb routing.
852 is an interesting suggesting and worth considering as it will provide new links.
Tampines North Interchange in future should provide relief to Tampines. UEC still has some spaces, so does Eunos.
Bedok?? This one is already full... what is the alternative for Bedok interchange? Either services move to Tampines north or Eunos to create new routes at Bedok interchange or it will stay as it is. I don't think the new interchange is bigger than the current one.
I am concerned about how they are going to manage CCK. BPJ new interchange is not big, nor is Bukit Batok. These towns are growing, and they do not have space for new services, whereas it is most needed here.
Will Tengah be the one to provide relief here? But Tengah according to me will still take few years to develop.
Bukit Batok I'm sure will move to a bigger int near West Mall...CCK at worst have a terminal...Tengah I think not too big also..I'm confident Sembawang will have at least 2 service starts there..Bedok?I think 38 can loop there..69 can start from Tampines loop at Eunos..Simei no space for bus terminal.Marine Parade can built a terminal once rail plan is up
Pasir ris is fine IMHO..Route mostly left n right...Northeast should be fine in 3-4 years time..Bidadari also got 1 interchange...
Hmm didn't catch the URA plan..but any specific location of Woodlands North Bus interchange? Would it be at RP there?