New Bus Services Announced by LTA/PTOs
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr busanalyser, the way I see it, the current route is still fine. No need to start from serangoon int as the int is packed. Cannot add another service or else sbs 81 and sbs 82 will not have to be amended in yr 2010. Sbs 81 will not need to loop at serangoon central and sbs 82 will not have to change starting int from serangoon to Punggol.
At times where sbs 116 loading is poor, it's frequency is neither great too. Not all bus services need to assume full loading at all sectors of the route. There are always higher crowds at certain sectors to compensate for the lower loading for other sectors. If it is that bad until it is unsustainable, LTA will have amended its route after receiving so much feedback over the 2 years. The fact that the route still remains shows that it may not be too bad as mentioned. Cheers.
Ha ha ha ha... "The fact that the route still remains..." sorry... this statement makes me laugh... which service LTA has modified... even if service is redundant, LTA will keep it... has so much money... has to spend it somewhere.
Anyway, sv 116 I have observed very closely... taken it 10 times+ almost full route... observed it 20+ times at NEX for loading (and 20+ times means days)... if u catch number of buses observed, will be around 60-70 buses on 116. I have also observed similarly at HG Interchange.
By now you should know I stay around NEL... so with my passion of loading analysis... I have observed this route very closely... and that's why I complain about it... I don't do it on other services... coz their loading is respectable... IMO even 120 is better than 116.
But yes LTA will keep this service... coz as I mentioned they 1. will not like to show that they made a mistake in route planning and 2. they don't care, coz they have excess funds.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Ha ha ha ha... "The fact that the route still remains..." sorry... this statement makes me laugh... which service LTA has modified... even if service is redundant, LTA will keep it... has so much money... has to spend it somewhere.
Anyway, sv 116 I have observed very closely... taken it 10 times+ almost full route... observed it 20+ times at NEX for loading (and 20+ times means days)... if u catch number of buses observed, will be around 60-70 buses on 116. I have also observed similarly at HG Interchange.
By now you should know I stay around NEL... so with my passion of loading analysis... I have observed this route very closely... and that's why I complain about it... I don't do it on other services... coz their loading is respectable... IMO even 120 is better than 116.
But yes LTA will keep this service... coz as I mentioned they 1. will not like to show that they made a mistake in route planning and 2. they don't care, coz they have excess funds.
Hi mr busanalyser, they have already made known that they will not hesitate to amend BSEP routes or withdrawn it if the demand is too poor. They will make changes to the routes if there is constructive feedback. They have also amended sbs 49 in response to feedback from residents. Even if the bus service is BSEP, they will do it. This is made known already. By right, if a road is in Hougang, the Hougang int must have a bus service to ply it. Not a service from other interchanges (tampines) to serve it only. Something is amiss if sbs 72 plus the route only without any service from Hougang. Anyway sufficient home work must be done when service is introduced. Even after sbs 116 is introduced, sbs 72 route is still very high in demand. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr busanalyser, they have already made known that they will not hesitate to amend BSEP routes or withdrawn it if the demand is too poor. They will make changes to the routes if there is constructive feedback. They have also amended sbs 49 in response to feedback from residents. Even if the bus service is BSEP, they will do it. This is made known already. By right, if a road is in Hougang, the Hougang int must have a bus service to ply it. Not a service from other interchanges (tampines) to serve it only. Something is amiss if sbs 72 plus the route only without any service from Hougang. Anyway sufficient home work must be done when service is introduced. Even after sbs 116 is introduced, sbs 72 route is still very high in demand. Cheers.
You missed my point totally. But it is always the same way with you! Cheers and have a good day.
-
i like 116 cause when i come out from MRT i can take 116 instead of walking all the way to the bus stop at HCI to take 72/101
-
Originally posted by SBS5010P:
i like 116 cause when i come out from MRT i can take 116 instead of walking all the way to the bus stop at HCI to take 72/101
Ha ha ha ha... how old are you? 70?
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Ha ha ha ha... how old are you? 70?
72 years old
-
if sv116 loading is real bad, then why LTA go add one bus?
we shall see sv140 loading.....
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
if sv116 loading is real bad, then why LTA go add one bus?
we shall see sv140 loading.....
Excess funds lor..
They add bus not to maximise capacity, its to increase freq.
-
Good luck to 35... I foresee chaos at the tiny TMFT stop... SBST must do very precise scheduling to prevent both buses from entering at the same time
140 is a good move.
-
My proposal for edited version of sv 116
Serangoon Interchange
Upper Serangoon Road
Boundary Road
YCK Link
YCK Road
Serangoon North Ave 1 (edited part)
Serangoon North Ave 4
Hougang Ave 9
Hougang Ave 4 (route changes from here)
Hougang St 51
Buangkok Green
Buangkok Dr
Sengkang Central
Sengkang East Ave
Anchorvale Link
Sengkang East Way
Sengkang West Way
Jalan Kayu
Sengkang West Rd
Seletar Road (loop)
** Serangoon Interchange can accommodate 1 more service
** Connect Hougang st 51/Buangkok to Buangkok MRT
** Connects Anchorvale Link/Sengkang East/West to Buangkok MRT
** Service to Seletar Road that does not have any service today
** For pax who lose route between HG Ave 9 and HG MRT can take sv 72/72A
** For pax who lose route between HG Ave 4 and HG MRT can take sv 72/72A/101/165
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Good luck to 35... I foresee chaos at the tiny TMFT stop... SBST must do very precise scheduling to prevent both buses from entering at the same time
140 is a good move.
would prefer 35 to skip TMFT and express aft xilin ave all the way to alps ave (loop)
35M to ply the old 35 route (Loop at TMFT)
-
Originally posted by SBS5010P:
Excess funds lor..
They add bus not to maximise capacity, its to increase freq.
then why they never add bus to 141/120/121/49 since there are excess funds/bus to improve on the frequency?
-
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z05bwsc6jYeQ.k0OF08ZnVUxM
Suggestion for Service 116 merger with 43M.
Punggol-Serangoon Ctrl
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
then why they never add bus to 141/120/121/49 since there are excess funds/bus to improve on the frequency?
116 frequency even today is 15 mins... before bus was added was even worse...
All other services frequency is good. sv 49 frequency is even better, what's the need to add bus?
Are u now implying sv 116 load is more than sv 49 and 121... then u have to be kidding me!!
-
113 or 116 frequency better ?
116 of course! BSEP svc leh.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
You missed my point totally. But it is always the same way with you! Cheers and have a good day.
Hi mr busanalyser, I was trying to put in a nice way that sbs 49 was amended due to feedback. So It is a point to rebut you that you laughed at the statement the route still remains. So I did not miss your point. I merely try to make you look good. If a route is that lousy, surely it will have been amended after so many people feedback. When the route still remain, this will indicate that it proves that it has achieved a minimum standard of a service that LTA introduced initially. If LTA sets too low a bar as a minimum standard, write in and comment. See what they reply. So please do not launch words and comment like 'it is always the same way with you'. You sound so overbearing and self assuming and this reflects poorly of you as a person. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by TIB1112L:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z05bwsc6jYeQ.k0OF08ZnVUxM
Suggestion for Service 116 merger with 43M.
Punggol-Serangoon Ctrl
Not trying to critcise your route, but you have 82 from Punggol to Serangoon Ctrl (Loop)...
-
Originally posted by TIB1112L:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z05bwsc6jYeQ.k0OF08ZnVUxM
Suggestion for Service 116 merger with 43M.
Punggol-Serangoon Ctrl
Hi mr TIB1112, I prefer bus services from Punggol going to other locations in singapore rather than always the same old few places (sengkang, Hougang, serangoon). Give us somewhere like orchard or novena or balestier. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr busanalyser, I was trying to put in a nice way that sbs 49 was amended due to feedback. So It is a point to rebut you that you laughed at the statement the route still remains. So I did not miss your point. I merely try to make you look good. If a route is that lousy, surely it will have been amended after so many people feedback. When the route still remain, this will indicate that it proves that it has achieved a minimum standard of a service that LTA introduced initially. If LTA sets too low a bar as a minimum standard, write in and comment. See what they reply. So please do not launch words and comment like 'it is always the same way with you'. You sound so overbearing and self assuming and this reflects poorly of you as a person. Cheers.
Well if you want to get into a wally of words, we can... You also seem to "know it all" even without doing ground work, and teach everyone here... how LTA is doing the right thing here and there. If you don't agree, learn to rest your arguments rather than go on and on.. or maybe you are paid for it.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr busanalyser, I was trying to put in a nice way that sbs 49 was amended due to feedback. So It is a point to rebut you that you laughed at the statement the route still remains. So I did not miss your point. I merely try to make you look good. If a route is that lousy, surely it will have been amended after so many people feedback. When the route still remain, this will indicate that it proves that it has achieved a minimum standard of a service that LTA introduced initially. If LTA sets too low a bar as a minimum standard, write in and comment. See what they reply. So please do not launch words and comment like 'it is always the same way with you'. You sound so overbearing and self assuming and this reflects poorly of you as a person. Cheers.
i think its quite clear 116 could be better and so many people feedback. are you sure it will surely have been amended after so many people feedback? if it has achieved a 'minimum standard' then that is extremely low. i do think that LTA amending routes it planned itself would be tantamount to admitting that the route was poorly planned in the first place so to save face they wont amend anyway. to them, taxpayers money anyway, not their money lah
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
i think its quite clear 116 could be better and so many people feedback. are you sure it will surely have been amended after so many people feedback? if it has achieved a 'minimum standard' then that is extremely low. i do think that LTA amending routes it planned itself would be tantamount to admitting that the route was poorly planned in the first place so to save face they wont amend anyway. to them, taxpayers money anyway, not their money lah
It depends on who is giving the feedback, and whether the person has substantial lobbying power.
There is no excess resources. Allocation of limited resources is always a zero-sum game; if one gets more, another will get less.
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
i think its quite clear 116 could be better and so many people feedback. are you sure it will surely have been amended after so many people feedback? if it has achieved a 'minimum standard' then that is extremely low. i do think that LTA amending routes it planned itself would be tantamount to admitting that the route was poorly planned in the first place so to save face they wont amend anyway. to them, taxpayers money anyway, not their money lah
Hi mr TIB868X, did you write in or you just assume? Cheers.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Well if you want to get into a wally of words, we can... You also seem to "know it all" even without doing ground work, and teach everyone here... how LTA is doing the right thing here and there. If you don't agree, learn to rest your arguments rather than go on and on.. or maybe you are paid for it.
Hi mr busanalyser, I do not like to get into a war of words. This is my style and has always been. I don't teach people and I don't expect any credits. Everybody who reads all these knows who always starts off all these nonsense and who likes to shoot people. You are one who is boastful and brings down people by your comments. Only knows how to criticize the authority when you don't get it your way. You have shot me few times while I still remain passive and do not bother to get into all these rubbish. Show your knowledge without being disrespectful to others. Keep on shooting me and show to others your naivety. This is not the first time. If admins here can ban people who always shoots people, you will definitely be one of them. I rest my case. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr TIB868X, did you write in or you just assume? Cheers.
would it make any difference? simple observation of data such as fare data would establish some facts that loading audits can. even drivers can and have feedback.
quite clear to see many MPs taking credit for BSEP routes, thus its quite clear whose feedback matters most ;)
-
Originally posted by TIB868X:
would it make any difference? simple observation of data such as fare data would establish some facts that loading audits can. even drivers can and have feedback.
in my opinion, the opinions of the regular commuter that writes in to PTOs matter the least. the lobbyists within the government do however seem to matter. quite clear to see many MPs taking credit for BSEP routes, perhaps some lobbying was involved.
Hi mr TIB868X, why not? Do something constructive. Write in. If fail, write to your RC or even the MP if you think lobbying helps. At least if he or she cannot help, then at least you know you have done something. Better than lament here and there or in forums online lambasting the authority. Sbs 49 route was amended due to feedback to the RC and MP. Cheers.