Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr SMB128B, my original statement should have been 'I see no major benefit for sbs 36 so that it will make LTA amend sbs 36 for it to stop at Napier road CP.' In this way, it will have been clearer. Sorry for the poor English. I am not referring to any LTA benefit. Cheers.
In any way, this is how long trunk services which go for a loop at a road tend to experience messy scheduling. Not only sbs 36. Sbs 62 is another one. The list goes on. If they want to amend, they could have easily made sbs 62 stop at geylang lor 1 terminal which they did not. Even if you have successfully give sbs 36 a fixed terminal, you will not have helped all other services. Cheers.
dupdup.. give me a break... i dont buy your and LTA argument.. there are ways to augment it... and change
1. 62 can be terminated at Lor 1 Geylang terminal, improving significantly the reliability and timeliness of sv 62
2. 55/135/155 can be terminated at Siglap terminal, just a roadside terminal
3. 76 can be terminated at Siglap terminal as well - do you know how often 76 DDs get late and bunch. It is an easy fix if LTA decides.
4. There are similarly many ways in which LTA can make sure bus service reliability can be improved instead of just going on adding new buses not helping the cause either.
Long routes that loop should be strictly avoided. Shorter routes like 141 should actually be looping rather than having terminating points on both sides.
Originally posted by Acx1688:As a daily user of sv36... freq has improved at certain times morning peak only... Still waiting for the DD that central planning unit say wants to implement for sv36B
I really hope they implement. this time around lot of BSEP DDs registered. Hope 2-3 go to 36B
Originally posted by Acx1688:As a daily user of sv36... freq has improved at certain times morning peak only... Still waiting for the DD that central planning unit say wants to implement for sv36B
Reliability...
And which direction?
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
dupdup.. give me a break... i dont buy your and LTA argument.. there are ways to augment it... and change1. 62 can be terminated at Lor 1 Geylang terminal, improving significantly the reliability and timeliness of sv 62
2. 55/135/155 can be terminated at Siglap terminal, just a roadside terminal
3. 76 can be terminated at Siglap terminal as well - do you know how often 76 DDs get late and bunch. It is an easy fix if LTA decides.
4. There are similarly many ways in which LTA can make sure bus service reliability can be improved instead of just going on adding new buses not helping the cause either.
Long routes that loop should be strictly avoided. Shorter routes like 141 should actually be looping rather than having terminating points on both sides.
Hi mr BusAnalyser, did you misread or something else? I wanted sbs 62 to terminate at geylang lor 1 terminal. My arguments are that I want bus services to terminate at interchanges or terminals. I do not like long trunk services with only looping points. You must have misread my intentions. Go read the earlier paragraphs carefully again. Cheers. But I believe my wishes will not be granted.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr BusAnalyser, did you misread or something else? I wanted sbs 62 to terminate at geylang lor 1 terminal. My arguments are that I want bus services to terminate at interchanges or terminals. I do not like long trunk services with only looping points. You must have misread my intentions. Go read the earlier paragraphs carefully again. Cheers. But I believe my wishes will not be granted.
sorry my mistake. I didnt read it properly.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:sorry my mistake. I didnt read it properly.
Hi mr BusAnalyser, it is ok. There was a time few weeks back when I chased for sbs 62 outside Punggol park bus stop (hougang ave 8) back to Punggol plaza in the night time. I missed the sbs 62 which I was running for. Then I waited for the next 22 min just to get onto the next sbs 62. I was furious but I believed this was caused by the looping sbs 62. If sbs 62 stopped at geylang lor 1 terminal, its frequency will have been better controlled and I do not have to wait 22 min. Cheers.
Removed
As highlighted in prev posts, sv62 irregularity due to lack of enforcement of illegal parking at macpherson, geylang areas...
Buses leave int on time, no1 dare be late for 20min late evening/night freq...
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
dupdup.. give me a break... i dont buy your and LTA argument.. there are ways to augment it... and change1. 62 can be terminated at Lor 1 Geylang terminal, improving significantly the reliability and timeliness of sv 62
2. 55/135/155 can be terminated at Siglap terminal, just a roadside terminal
3. 76 can be terminated at Siglap terminal as well - do you know how often 76 DDs get late and bunch. It is an easy fix if LTA decides.
4. There are similarly many ways in which LTA can make sure bus service reliability can be improved instead of just going on adding new buses not helping the cause either.
Long routes that loop should be strictly avoided. Shorter routes like 141 should actually be looping rather than having terminating points on both sides.
Siglap link should be set up as Marine Parade roadside ter for 55,135,155,36B
76 can do layover at marine terrace blk 50 bus stop to control bus departures, i have seen 2 DDs returning at 9pm freq...
Originally posted by SMB128B:Reliability...
And which direction?
Weekday Morning only before 830am... aft tt die...
Weekday evenings FAIL
WEEKENDS CFM fail
Originally posted by SBS7557R:The reason why 62 even loops at Lor 1 Geylang in the first place is because of the inability of accomodating double-deck buses at Lorong 1 Geylang Terminal.
Hi mr SBS7557R, thanks for the clarification. Care to elaborate?
Originally posted by SBS7557R:The reason why 62 even loops at Lor 1 Geylang in the first place is because of the inability of accomodating double-deck buses at Lorong 1 Geylang Terminal.
Bro, before sv197 was merged with sv41, it used to terminate at Lorong 1 Geylang and it uses MBO305 then
sv21 also terminate there before merging with old sv4, also use DD...
Anything is possible, it is whether the CENTRAL Planning unit wants to implement it
Wait! after all this hubris and hint dropping, maybe someone is trying to tell us something wrt sv62...
With all the speculation of wic svc will be enhanced to serve kallang estate, it could be sv62!
Let's all tink hard, real hard...
Originally posted by Acx1688:Wait! after all this hubris and hint dropping, maybe someone is trying to tell us something wrt sv62...
With all the speculation of wic svc will be enhanced to serve kallang estate, it could be sv62!
Let's all tink hard, real hard...
Hi mr Acx1688, it will definitely not be sbs 62. Sbs 62 main objective is to serve Punggol/sengkang/hougang residents. Cheers.
Originally posted by SBS7557R:The reason why 62 even loops at Lor 1 Geylang in the first place is because of the inability of accomodating double-deck buses at Lorong 1 Geylang Terminal.
What's the reason Lor 1 cannot accommodate DDs?
Originally posted by Acx1688:Siglap link should be set up as Marine Parade roadside ter for 55,135,155,36B
76 can do layover at marine terrace blk 50 bus stop to control bus departures, i have seen 2 DDs returning at 9pm freq...
Actually sv 76 can also terminate at Siglap and do Marine Terrace in both direction with 1 DD fleet add. I dont think in such short distance LTA will be willing to have two terminals.
Originally posted by Acx1688:Wait! after all this hubris and hint dropping, maybe someone is trying to tell us something wrt sv62...
With all the speculation of wic svc will be enhanced to serve kallang estate, it could be sv62!
Let's all tink hard, real hard...
I would welcome the decision. And you mean the bus would terminate at Sims Place Terminal?
Originally posted by Acx1688:Wait! after all this hubris and hint dropping, maybe someone is trying to tell us something wrt sv62...
With all the speculation of wic svc will be enhanced to serve kallang estate, it could be sv62!
Let's all tink hard, real hard...
guess correct i think...
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
What's the reason Lor 1 cannot accommodate DDs?
no reason, it can accomodate DDs, c my earlier posts
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Actually sv 76 can also terminate at Siglap and do Marine Terrace in both direction with 1 DD fleet add. I dont think in such short distance LTA will be willing to have two terminals.
if sv76 terminate at Siglap, LTA needs to open up traffic junction at Marine Terrace/Marine Parade Rd for sv76 to right turn to M Parade Rd after M Terrace...
If created there would be 2 junction in less than 200m(there is another one for east coast park connector), cfm no go...
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I would welcome the decision. And you mean the bus would terminate at Sims Place Terminal?
no idea... but i know one thing BC very exhausted aft one trip due to inconsiderate road users along the whole route...
Originally posted by Acx1688:if sv76 terminate at Siglap, LTA needs to open up traffic junction at Marine Terrace/Marine Parade Rd for sv76 to right turn to M Parade Rd after M Terrace...
If created there would be 2 junction in less than 200m(there is another one for east coast park connector), cfm no go...
Bro can take right where sv 196 takes to Marine Parade road, right?
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Bro can take right where sv 196 takes to Marine Parade road, right?
then it will b bac 2 square one
why sv76 divert to M Terrace(blk50) in the first place is to cater to the students and the elderly living in the area...
Was hugely reported in the press(SME Goh's ward) after "months of discussions" bet GRO n SBST N LTA N PTC...
ORCHARD NEED A BUS TERMINAL!!
Because everytime at 11+pm when I am at town area, I always worry whether there is last bus T.T Sometimes I will miss it, then have to cab home ....