Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Yes... gone from their websites as well... so it cannot be " by mistake " deletion. I think they realized some of their stupidity in route planning. Hopefully they make appropriate change but its only 5 days before they launch, so they better be quick.
On another note, if they have taken commuters remarks seriously (as many bashed LTA for stupid route planning), I welcome that LTA is willing to hear us and make appropriate ammends. Lets see what comes out.
Cheers!
Having said that, I hope they push back 983 till 2016 and let heavier 300G/W fleet and new 301 to get use to the compact interchange...
I think this is appropriate so that in a yr time when 983 come in, another small arrangement can be done and not 1 time good one impact on the same day causing chaos...
Originally posted by p228:
I think maybe I too outdated lol. I remember last time is a few days before implementation date the number is there already haha
Like SMRT ownself intro services then will put few days before intro... LTA ones few months ago started to get things done at the very last minute...
http://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/smrt/pressreleases/postponed-implementation-of-route-changes-and-new-services-to-better-serve-residents-and-commuters-1115533
To enhance the bus network in the Choa Chu Kang area, we are working on some changes to the routes of existing Bus Services 300 and 982E, as well as new Bus Services 301 and 983.
As new concerns have been raised by residents to the Advisers of the Choa Chu Kang GRC, LTA is reviewing the proposed route changes and new services together with the Advisers, grassroots leaders and SMRT. The scheduled improvements will likely be implemented in early April 2015 instead. More details will be released at a later date.
We seek your understanding and thank you for your support for the Bus Service Enhancement Programme.
Seems like 300G/W was too alarming for the residents.
I don't think residents would complain about having "redundant bus services" with an extra svc 983. If anything, it would maintain the important connection between schs at Ave 4 and flats at Ave 5. More likely the "new concerns" are regarding loss of other intra-town connections.
Let's take a look at the changes in connectivity with the proposed route changes:
Existing svc 300
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 4 - Ave 5 - Ave 2/3
Amended svc 300G/W
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 4 - Ave 3 (only for 300W) - Ave 2
New svc 301
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 3 - Ave 5
New svc 983
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 4 - Ave 5
With the proposed changes, the following direct connections are lost:
1. Ave 4 - Ave 3 (full stretch)
2. Ave 5 - Ave 2
The Ave 4 - Ave 3 connection is needed for students at BP Govt high or Concord Pri (Ave 4) living at Ave 3, mainly for those on the other side of Ave 3 further from Ave 4, although they can also walk to Ave 2 to take 300G/W.
The Ave 5 - Ave 2 connection is needed for students at CCK Pri (Ave 2) living at Ave 5, and maybe for Ave 5 residents heading to Keat Hong Shopping Centre, although they can also walk to Ave 1 to take 172 to Ave 3, then walk in to Ave 5.
For both cases, pax can make a one way connection by transferring at the bus stop in front of Sunshine Plaza, along Ave 3. (975/301 -> 300W for Ave 3 to Ave 4, and 300W -> 301 for Ave 2 to Ave 5) Currently, there is only one bus stop in front of Sunshine Plaza with no bus stop opposite due to lack of space, with an Esso petrol station in the middle of that stretch of road.
A possible solution is to have a single, wider road leading into the petrol station for both entry and exit, instead of entry and exit points at both ends of the petrol station. A bus stop can then be placed at the longer stretch of pavement which includes the closed entry/exit point. The traffic flow within the petrol station would also need to be reconfigured to allow vehicles to turn back to exit. With a bus stop there, pax can make transfers in the opposite direction as well, and also improving connections to that area with an extra bus stop.
With the route changes postponed just a few days before implementation, and after the official announcement has been made, this tells us how difficult it is to reroute bus services to improve efficiency, at the cost of reducing the number of direct connections provided. Also shows how powerful the grassroots advisors are in having a say on such matters.
Originally posted by carbikebus:Ironic,164 should start from Sengkang to Punggol cause of 163..122 dont tell me from New Bridge Rd to Queenstown?Queenstown might be parallel with 195 routings?
Why dont they create something like Punggol to Sembawang instead?New svc all clogged within town and create more parking woes at Interchanges..LTA cannot think or just for the wayang sake of buying new buses and create more routes?lets say if ITHs like Serangoon size got 2 long distance trunks,3 short trunks and 3 feeders,wont the situation getting worse during peak hours due to the turnaround?Like that also cant think?At least SBST and SMRT doing a great job create a new svc
Thats why like i said earlier,the route planning shld just be left with the PTOs instead of this fucked up LTA.. they just want to wayang to ppl only that they are really doing the work..all standard tricks by the bloody govt..
Originally posted by 201911:I don't think residents would complain about having "redundant bus services" with an extra svc 983. If anything, it would maintain the important connection between schs at Ave 4 and flats at Ave 5. More likely the "new concerns" are regarding loss of other intra-town connections.
Let's take a look at the changes in connectivity with the proposed route changes:
Existing svc 300
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 4 - Ave 5 - Ave 2/3
Amended svc 300G/W
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 4 - Ave 3 (only for 300W) - Ave 2
New svc 301
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 3 - Ave 5
New svc 983
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 4 - Ave 5
With the proposed changes, the following direct connections are lost:
1. Ave 4 - Ave 3 (full stretch)
2. Ave 5 - Ave 2
The Ave 4 - Ave 3 connection is needed for students at BP Govt high or Concord Pri (Ave 4) living at Ave 3, mainly for those on the other side of Ave 3 further from Ave 4, although they can also walk to Ave 2 to take 300G/W.
The Ave 5 - Ave 2 connection is needed for students at CCK Pri (Ave 2) living at Ave 5, and maybe for Ave 5 residents heading to Keat Hong Shopping Centre, although they can also walk to Ave 1 to take 172 to Ave 3, then walk in to Ave 5.
For both cases, pax can make a one way connection by transferring at the bus stop in front of Sunshine Plaza, along Ave 3. (975/301 -> 300W for Ave 3 to Ave 4, and 300W -> 301 for Ave 2 to Ave 5) Currently, there is only one bus stop in front of Sunshine Plaza with no bus stop opposite due to lack of space, with an Esso petrol station in the middle of that stretch of road.
A possible solution is to have a single, wider road leading into the petrol station for both entry and exit, instead of entry and exit points at both ends of the petrol station. A bus stop can then be placed at the longer stretch of pavement which includes the closed entry/exit point. The traffic flow within the petrol station would also need to be reconfigured to allow vehicles to turn back to exit. With a bus stop there, pax can make transfers in the opposite direction as well, and also improving connections to that area with an extra bus stop.
With the route changes postponed just a few days before implementation, and after the official announcement has been made, this tells us how difficult it is to reroute bus services to improve efficiency, at the cost of reducing the number of direct connections provided. Also shows how powerful the grassroots advisors are in having a say on such matters.
The power of lobbying...
Originally posted by TIB1112L:http://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/smrt/pressreleases/postponed-implementation-of-route-changes-and-new-services-to-better-serve-residents-and-commuters-1115533
To enhance the bus network in the Choa Chu Kang area, we are working on some changes to the routes of existing Bus Services 300 and 982E, as well as new Bus Services 301 and 983.
As new concerns have been raised by residents to the Advisers of the Choa Chu Kang GRC, LTA is reviewing the proposed route changes and new services together with the Advisers, grassroots leaders and SMRT. The scheduled improvements will likely be implemented in early April 2015 instead. More details will be released at a later date.
We seek your understanding and thank you for your support for the Bus Service Enhancement Programme.
Seems like 300G/W was too alarming for the residents.
Okay good to see they at least put this up. But postponed by 2 months. wow. I think they did realize there was too much duplication and I think this time around people were more vocal because they are tired with the kind of routes LTA is launching. They are really bad. I hope they also realize this.
They better have better routes since its a 2 month delay and not minor changes.
Originally posted by Merczrox:Thats why like i said earlier,the route planning shld just be left with the PTOs instead of this fucked up LTA.. they just want to wayang to ppl only that they are really doing the work..all standard tricks by the bloody govt..
Yes LTA route planning no good.
Okay I will take my words back bcoz I really like some routes like 4, 20, 50, 972... but majority ones could have been planned better.
Originally posted by 201911:I don't think residents would complain about having "redundant bus services" with an extra svc 983. If anything, it would maintain the important connection between schs at Ave 4 and flats at Ave 5. More likely the "new concerns" are regarding loss of other intra-town connections.
Let's take a look at the changes in connectivity with the proposed route changes:
Existing svc 300
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 4 - Ave 5 - Ave 2/3
Amended svc 300G/W
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 4 - Ave 3 (only for 300W) - Ave 2
New svc 301
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 3 - Ave 5
New svc 983
CCK Int/MRT - Ave 4 - Ave 5
With the proposed changes, the following direct connections are lost:
1. Ave 4 - Ave 3 (full stretch)
2. Ave 5 - Ave 2
The Ave 4 - Ave 3 connection is needed for students at BP Govt high or Concord Pri (Ave 4) living at Ave 3, mainly for those on the other side of Ave 3 further from Ave 4, although they can also walk to Ave 2 to take 300G/W.
The Ave 5 - Ave 2 connection is needed for students at CCK Pri (Ave 2) living at Ave 5, and maybe for Ave 5 residents heading to Keat Hong Shopping Centre, although they can also walk to Ave 1 to take 172 to Ave 3, then walk in to Ave 5.
For both cases, pax can make a one way connection by transferring at the bus stop in front of Sunshine Plaza, along Ave 3. (975/301 -> 300W for Ave 3 to Ave 4, and 300W -> 301 for Ave 2 to Ave 5) Currently, there is only one bus stop in front of Sunshine Plaza with no bus stop opposite due to lack of space, with an Esso petrol station in the middle of that stretch of road.
A possible solution is to have a single, wider road leading into the petrol station for both entry and exit, instead of entry and exit points at both ends of the petrol station. A bus stop can then be placed at the longer stretch of pavement which includes the closed entry/exit point. The traffic flow within the petrol station would also need to be reconfigured to allow vehicles to turn back to exit. With a bus stop there, pax can make transfers in the opposite direction as well, and also improving connections to that area with an extra bus stop.
With the route changes postponed just a few days before implementation, and after the official announcement has been made, this tells us how difficult it is to reroute bus services to improve efficiency, at the cost of reducing the number of direct connections provided. Also shows how powerful the grassroots advisors are in having a say on such matters.
Hi mr 201911, this goes to show just 1 big issue. Once the direct connection (ave 4-ave 3 full stretch, ave 5-ave 2) is there already, it is not easy to go destroy or substitute that direct connection by any other half-hearted efforts. The same goes for the route services and directions in other estates. Once it is there, any efforts to deviate from it is bound to receive strong oppositions especially from those who are directly affected.
Only route extensions, new routes are welcome with both hands. For those partially amended routes, alternative direct bus services must be given. That is why when I see those route suggestions in other topics like cutting short smrt 858 route with no viable direct alternative given, I know it is definitely not possible. Take note asking many people to transfer is deemed not viable. Cheers
i also do hope they will put YewTee into consideration (adding a city direct service is a good start).
which also shows Ave 4 residents are more proactive, it was also partly them that 300 keep getting fleet add from both SMRT and LTA
and just to update from my previous post (although not impt now since the official post of the postpone is out), the notices at CCK INT are removed from the 300 berth...
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Okay I will take my words back bcoz I really like some routes like 4, 20, 50, 972... but majority ones could have been planned better.
True..I see svc 4 everyday and its really a success svc which have been introduced by LTA.. but it wld be really better if they introduce more long dist svcs instead of most of the crap svcs they are introducing nw..wonder whats so difficult for them in nt doing so all this while..
my suggestion for 983 since i live along cck ave 4.
same route as propose..
extend to Bukit Gombak MRT stn
via Ave 5, Ave 6, Brickland Rd, Bt Batok West Ave 5, Bt Batok St 31 (loop), back to West Ave 5.
Once DTL is up, divert the service to BP or create new service to Bt Gombak.
Current service amendment plans are cancelled
there will be a new bus service 983 from CCK to Bt Batok via Bt Gombak from April 2015. Most likely 301 introduced as just a supplementary service and service 300 is retained.
Service 300G/W,301,983 are related, thus if one is not carried out, the whole amendment has to be scrapped
if you introduce 300G/W without either 301/983 or both, there will be loss of links that passengers used to enjoy
if you introduce 983 without introducing 300G/W, LTA will get slammed for redundant service.
due to resident feedback about 300, the whole thing just has to be scrapped, which actually is good news for most of us
In the first place why need G/W when they can just make a M variant that run a portion of the route?300 need just 11 bendy buses and 1 rigid while the M variant can do just 3 A22 full day.983 seriously should start from Bt Panjang and loop at CCK plying those essential routes.301 is just fine.CCK cannot expand due to its surrounding areas..Best thing to have small terminal around CCK Way near the heavy vehicle parking areas
As what i had suggested for 983, turning out from CCK Ave 6 to Brickland is posssible, but not the other way round since there is no junction to allow turning in... Very high chance the current 983 is what as shown with orange line...
Route Suggestion on BSEP 306, 983 & 984...
Service 306 [Choa Chu Kang Int <> Choa Chu Kang St 54, North 6/7]
- Revert 300G/W back to 300 as a 1-way trip to make space for 306
- Provide better access link to Yew Tee and army camps along Choa Chu Kang Way
- Help divert loading from 302, 302A & 307
Service 983 [Choa Chu Kang Int <> Bt Panjang] (LOOP)
- Pair of new bus stops already shaped along CCK Ave 6 currently, that will possibly make way for future 983 extension (labeled with orange line as indication in the map)
- To make up the speed along the route, it'll will ply Brickland as a suggestion for now, so that pax can head back to their estate in a shorter time
Service 984 [Sembawang Int <> Choa Chu Kang Terminal]
- A new roadside terminal beside the landscape & current CCK Interchange encouraged
- Better connection to CCK via Woodlands/BKE/Mandai Rd/Sungei Kadut Ave/Yew Tee
- Many uncovered sections would be served
- Semi-parallel MRT service
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zs70d3gkW184.kjc8MfdPMvAo
Good suggestion bro,Can feedback to Lee Transport Authority direct.
Originally posted by TIB1112L:Current service amendment plans are cancelled
there will be a new bus service 983 from CCK to Bt Batok via Bt Gombak from April 2015. Most likely 301 introduced as just a supplementary service and service 300 is retained.
That will be a good move. One of the routes I was proposing. Today there is no connection to Bukit Gambok from CCK. I hope this service does st 32, st 31 and goes to Bukit Gambok mrt... and then plies east ave 5 to bukit batok.
Lets see how the route is.
Originally posted by TIB1112L:Service 300G/W,301,983 are related, thus if one is not carried out, the whole amendment has to be scrapped
if you introduce 300G/W without either 301/983 or both, there will be loss of links that passengers used to enjoy
if you introduce 983 without introducing 300G/W, LTA will get slammed for redundant service.
due to resident feedback about 300, the whole thing just has to be scrapped, which actually is good news for most of us
What was the issue with 300G/W... I don't really get it... if at all, it was only going to help cck ave 2 residents... and with 983 and 301 there was no missing link.
I think it is more than that... LTA must have gotten a lot of backlash with the way the routes were planned. See the LTA FB page.. almost everyone have written nasty comments. no one appreciated them introducing and making these changes.
so that has made them wait and ponder if they are doing the right thing.
by the way if 983 is not going to bukit panjang... then they will in future need another service to connect to dtl2.
I think 300G/W and 301 was fine. Issue was with 983 route that got people agitated.
i wish peop complain lot about 990 route when launch. such bad route. bus empty ever. waste of money la. y 990 cannot extend to cck via bukit gambok instead? 983 continue to do bukit panjkang as planed extension and 990 extend to cck from bukit batok. more peop will take. now bus empty. very bad route. anyon e disagree?
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:What was the issue with 300G/W... I don't really get it... if at all, it was only going to help cck ave 2 residents... and with 983 and 301 there was no missing link.
I think it is more than that... LTA must have gotten a lot of backlash with the way the routes were planned. See the LTA FB page.. almost everyone have written nasty comments. no one appreciated them introducing and making these changes.
so that has made them wait and ponder if they are doing the right thing.
by the way if 983 is not going to bukit panjang... then they will in future need another service to connect to dtl2.
I think 300G/W and 301 was fine. Issue was with 983 route that got people agitated.
975/190 alr enough for now
saw this FB comment
"We resident of Chua Chu Kang Ave5 are not happy with the new bus service 301and 983 as the route are not serving to ave2 (ChuaChuKang Primary School & KeatHongMarket). 70% of ave5 residents sending their children schooling at CCKPS with bus 300 on dry or rainy whether for past 10yrs. Now we have to walk from ave 5 to ave 2 why are the MPs don't think on residents and student that stay at ave 5? Should we have to change buses and PAY extra again to get ave 2 ? We resident of ave 5 will submit Petition to Minister on our resident and children convenient to CCKPS at ave 2.
We need bus from chuachukang ave5 to ave2 cck primary school and KeatHongMarket .we need seriously ."
perhaps, this explains why they delay the new services?
Originally posted by proudtobeme:i wish peop complain lot about 990 route when launch. such bad route. bus empty ever. waste of money la. y 990 cannot extend to cck via bukit gambok instead? 983 continue to do bukit panjkang as planed extension and 990 extend to cck from bukit batok. more peop will take. now bus empty. very bad route. anyon e disagree?
so far 990 full seating only during peak hrs, from 9pm onwards, only 1-3 ppl take
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:What was the issue with 300G/W... I don't really get it... if at all, it was only going to help cck ave 2 residents... and with 983 and 301 there was no missing link.
I think it is more than that... LTA must have gotten a lot of backlash with the way the routes were planned. See the LTA FB page.. almost everyone have written nasty comments. no one appreciated them introducing and making these changes.
so that has made them wait and ponder if they are doing the right thing.
by the way if 983 is not going to bukit panjang... then they will in future need another service to connect to dtl2.
I think 300G/W and 301 was fine. Issue was with 983 route that got people agitated.
i think it is because of ave 5 residents cant go ave 2
(refer to my post, 2 post above this)