New Bus Services Announced by LTA/PTOs
-
Actually CCK can only introduce 301 only.983 shouldnt be introduce first but instead a new 973 from BPJ via CCK/Bt Gombak and terminate at Bukit Batok.CCK is like clusterfark already..The turnaround of the feeders and svc like 190 already make the Int bloody crowded.I do agree that there is a need for terminal to supplement CCK and probably 925 can extend to start/End there.
-
Originally posted by SBS7123J:
To put it this way, those residents at CCK Ave 5 are unhappy with the loss of the direct link between CCK Ave 5 and CCK Pri Sch and Keat Hong Shopping Centre.
In my opinion, I don't know why some residents keep complaining when their connection to Ave 3 and Ave 4 are already maintained by having 2 similar services (which is a waste of resources). Apparently they want connection to everywhere else. Either they are lazy or they are selfish. -
The best is 300G/300W go by Ave 5 to maintain the link to Ave 2.
-
Originally posted by array88:
In my opinion, I don't know why some residents keep complaining when their connection to Ave 3 and Ave 4 are already maintained by having 2 similar services (which is a waste of resources). Apparently they want connection to everywhere else. Either they are lazy or they are selfish.Singapore what..What do you expect when you gonna know they will kpkb and complain..No wonder Govt has been been raising fares,Taxes and COEs,Jam a bit complain,Bus not full complain,Carpark full complain,Service not good to their eyes also complain..No wonder we are rank among the top 10 stressed country in the world
-
Originally posted by array88:
In my opinion, I don't know why some residents keep complaining when their connection to Ave 3 and Ave 4 are already maintained by having 2 similar services (which is a waste of resources). Apparently they want connection to everywhere else. Either they are lazy or they are selfish.
When a route is edited, there will tend to be connections lost. When this happens, there has to be alternative routes providing such connections. In the case of the recently published route amendments, the connection between Avenue 5 and Avenue 2 was lost.
In my opinion, I feel that the authorities should just retain the "main structure" of route 300 and simply extend it to make it bi-directional. They may want to re-route the part at Ave 5 to ply Ave 6 instead of Ave 3, so as to increase the route's coverage at Ave 5. Please refer to my route suggestion about it posted at the Route Suggestions (Part 5) thread.
According to the masterplan, there may be a new secondary school built at Ave 5 in future. It may be wise to have enhanced bus connection to Ave 5.
The only road they can afford to skip is Avenue 3, so long as the route continues to ply Ave 4 and Ave 2, because affected commuters can simply take 300 from Ave 4/2. Even with such little changes, it will bring about significant benefits, such as a shorter connection to Avenue 2 from CCK int.
Whereas for the future new trunk route, it should serve places where future establishments will be built. It should avoid duplicating more than 50% of a feeder route. There is apparently some major development (apart from residential) coming up at Choa Chu Kang Grove, according to the master plan. It may be wise to have a new trunk route to connect Choa Chu Kang residential areas (including Bukit Panjang and Teck Whye) to the upcoming major developments in the area.
-
Originally posted by Marvel68:
I heard rumors that the upcoming 164 might be from Punggol to Tampines, complementing service 3.
That is okay but sv 164 - seriously? couldn't they find better numbers like 1, 44, 46, 47 that could be used instead.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr marvel68, hip hip hooray if it is true. Everybody should have known by now the demand is damn great but sbs 3 is too winding to pasir ris/tampines. Obviously smrt 969 (full most of the times at TPE stop) and current sbs 34 (single deck) cannot handle the booming population in Punggol!!! I look forward to the good news. Anyway, nothing is true until there is official news. Cheers.
True. Even after adding 4 BSEP to sv 34, loading has been very high. Not just in Punggol, even within Tampines town, sv 34 is always packed.
-
Originally posted by SBS7123J:
To put it this way, those residents at CCK Ave 5 are unhappy with the loss of the direct link between CCK Ave 5 and CCK Pri Sch and Keat Hong Shopping Centre.
300 never went to Keat Hong Shopping Center... that is on ave 1 where sv 172 plies.
-
Originally posted by array88:
In my opinion, I don't know why some residents keep complaining when their connection to Ave 3 and Ave 4 are already maintained by having 2 similar services (which is a waste of resources). Apparently they want connection to everywhere else. Either they are lazy or they are selfish.True that.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Actually CCK can only introduce 301 only.983 shouldnt be introduce first but instead a new 973 from BPJ via CCK/Bt Gombak and terminate at Bukit Batok.CCK is like clusterfark already..The turnaround of the feeders and svc like 190 already make the Int bloody crowded.I do agree that there is a need for terminal to supplement CCK and probably 925 can extend to start/End there.
I think no need for 301. Just make 300G/W via cck int > cck ave 4 >ave 5 > ave 6 > ave 1 > ave 2 > cck way > cck int (problem of feeder and connection solved)
For ave 3, introduce 973 to bukit batok via gombak cck int > cck way > ave 3 > ave 5 > ave 6 > brickland road > ... You will in addition have 975/975A to connect to CCK MRT.
No need for 301. These two services will cover the area very well.
Once DTL 2 opens, introduce 983
cck int > cck ave 4 > cck ave 5 > cck ave 6 > cck ave 1 > cck way > cck rd > bpj (loop)
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
That is okay but sv 164 - seriously? couldn't they find better numbers like 1, 44, 46, 47 that could be used instead.
Following 161 & 168, probably.
Though I was hoping for a service 164 to pass through MacRitchie to complement the 162, 163, 165, 166, 167 there. Haha ~
-
Originally posted by AJQZC:
Following 161 & 168, probably.
Though I was hoping for a service 164 to pass through MacRitchie to complement the 162, 163, 165, 166, 167 there. Haha ~
Yes I was hoping it would be the Sengkang West Way trunk service, complementing sv 163.
-
Should be from Hgdep:To compliment 161,163,165..Can also start with 4x consider 43 is there.
If Bndep to partner with 168,If 4x can join svc 40,42,45
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
I think no need for 301. Just make 300G/W via cck int > cck ave 4 >ave 5 > ave 6 > ave 1 > ave 2 > cck way > cck int (problem of feeder and connection solved)
For ave 3, introduce 973 to bukit batok via gombak cck int > cck way > ave 3 > ave 5 > ave 6 > brickland road > ... You will in addition have 975/975A to connect to CCK MRT.
No need for 301. These two services will cover the area very well.
Once DTL 2 opens, introduce 983
cck int > cck ave 4 > cck ave 5 > cck ave 6 > cck ave 1 > cck way > cck rd > bpj (loop)
301 should compliment svc 302..Another high loading svc
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
When a route is edited, there will tend to be connections lost. When this happens, there has to be alternative routes providing such connections. In the case of the recently published route amendments, the connection between Avenue 5 and Avenue 2 was lost.
In my opinion, I feel that the authorities should just retain the "main structure" of route 300 and simply extend it to make it bi-directional. They may want to re-route the part at Ave 5 to ply Ave 6 instead of Ave 3, so as to increase the route's coverage at Ave 5. Please refer to my route suggestion about it posted at the Route Suggestions (Part 5) thread.
According to the masterplan, there may be a new secondary school built at Ave 5 in future. It may be wise to have enhanced bus connection to Ave 5.
The only road they can afford to skip is Avenue 3, so long as the route continues to ply Ave 4 and Ave 2, because affected commuters can simply take 300 from Ave 4/2. Even with such little changes, it will bring about significant benefits, such as a shorter connection to Avenue 2 from CCK int.
Whereas for the future new trunk route, it should serve places where future establishments will be built. It should avoid duplicating more than 50% of a feeder route. There is apparently some major development (apart from residential) coming up at Choa Chu Kang Grove, according to the master plan. It may be wise to have a new trunk route to connect Choa Chu Kang residential areas (including Bukit Panjang and Teck Whye) to the upcoming major developments in the area.
Having svc 300 ply Ave 5/6/1 instead of Ave 3/1 (between Ave 4 and Ave 2) would maintain the connection between Ave 5 and Ave 2, but would remove the direct connection between Ave 4, 5 and 2, and Sunshine Plaza at the junction of Ave 3 and Ave 1. Residents can still walk there from the bus stops along Ave 1 and Ave 2, but it may be a bit far.
To maintain both the Sunshine Plaza link as well as the Ave 5/2 link, svc 300 can ply your suggested route but make an extra loop around Sunshine Plaza (Ave 1, Ave 3, CCK Terrace) in both directions. The left turn from Ave 3 into CCK Terrace is quite tight though.
I think a balance needs to be struck between having long, winding svcs that do not require transfers, and having shorter svcs that are more direct but require walking or transfers for pax to go where they want. The original plan for 300G/W, 301 and 983 is more of the latter, and residents are naturally unhappy. Let's see how far the amended plan tilts the balance the other way.
-
Originally posted by 201911:
Having svc 300 ply Ave 5/6/1 instead of Ave 3/1 (between Ave 4 and Ave 2) would maintain the connection between Ave 5 and Ave 2, but would remove the direct connection between Ave 4, 5 and 2, and Sunshine Plaza at the junction of Ave 3 and Ave 1. Residents can still walk there from the bus stops along Ave 1 and Ave 2, but it may be a bit far.
To maintain both the Sunshine Plaza link as well as the Ave 5/2 link, svc 300 can ply your suggested route but make an extra loop around Sunshine Plaza (Ave 1, Ave 3, CCK Terrace) in both directions. The left turn from Ave 3 into CCK Terrace is quite tight though.
I think a balance needs to be struck between having long, winding svcs that do not require transfers, and having shorter svcs that are more direct but require walking or transfers for pax to go where they want. The original plan for 300G/W, 301 and 983 is more of the latter, and residents are naturally unhappy. Let's see how far the amended plan tilts the balance the other way.
The primary objective of feeder bus is to connect people from their house to a MRT station. For the direct connection between Avenue 4, 5 and 2, the authorities may want to instead re-route existing trunk routes or have a new trunk route, to provide such connections.
Anyway, is there really a need for such a bus connection, when people can easily walk? Seriously, if my house to the market is 400m-500m away and although there's no bus connection, I can walk (slowly) and reach there within within 5 minutes, I do not see why people at Avenue 4, 5 and 2 cannot just walk to SunShine Place.
At most, create a trunk route that begins/ends with this section:
- Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange
- Choa Chu Kang Loop
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 5
- ...
- ...
if really want, then just make that trunk route wind round and round the town lor.
After Ave 5, go Ave 6, Ave 1, Ave 2. After that, come back to Keat Hong... wind round and round...
seriously, not every neighbourhood centre must connect to every part of the town la. A good example is Pioneer Mall at Jurong West. Pioneer Mall is connected by bus to every region except Jurong West Street 91.
why should we give people staying at Choa Chu Kang extension bus connection to every market or shopping malls in the area, when people staying elsewhere also do not have absolute bus connections to everywhere in their neighbourhood, and have been walking for so many years without complaining?
Sorry la. I am not in a good mood now.
But seriously, what for provide a bus connection when people can walk there within minutes?
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
The primary objective of feeder bus is to connect people from their house to a MRT station. For the direct connection between Avenue 4, 5 and 2, the authorities may want to instead re-route existing trunk routes or have a new trunk route, to provide such connections.
Anyway, is there really a need for such a bus connection, when people can easily walk? Seriously, if my house to the market is 400m-500m away and although there's no bus connection, I can walk (slowly) and reach there within within 5 minutes, I do not see why people at Avenue 4, 5 and 2 cannot just walk to SunShine Place.
At most, create a trunk route that begins/ends with this section:
- Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange
- Choa Chu Kang Loop
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 5
- ...
- ...
if really want, then just make that trunk route wind round and round the town lor.
After Ave 5, go Ave 6, Ave 1, Ave 2. After that, come back to Keat Hong... wind round and round...
seriously, not every neighbourhood centre must connect to every part of the town la. A good example is Pioneer Mall at Jurong West. Pioneer Mall is connected by bus to every region except Jurong West Street 91.
why should we give people staying at Choa Chu Kang extension bus connection to every market or shopping malls in the area, when people staying elsewhere also do not have absolute bus connections to everywhere in their neighbourhood, and have been walking for so many years without complaining?
Sorry la. I am not in a good mood now.
But seriously, what for provide a bus connection when people can walk there within minutes?
Hi mr jurongwestresident, 2 issues.
Firstly, there is this connection for years and it is suddenly removed. Residents will definitely voice out. If it happens to you, will you keep quiet and accept it?
Secondly, not every resident is as fit as you. Can walk and run! There are residents from 7 yrs old to 90 years old. Some may be carrying heavy bags, some may be having two hands full of groceries, some just don't like walking, some unfit, older residents have medical condtions to legs. Some are going to run errands then transfer again (so no extra cost). So your statements are not too valid. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr jurongwestresident, 2 issues.
Firstly, there is this connection for years and it is suddenly removed. Residents will definitely voice out. If it happens to you, will you keep quiet and accept it?
Secondly, not every resident is as fit as you. Can walk and run! There are residents from 7 yrs old to 90 years old. Some may be carrying heavy bags, some may be having two hands full of groceries, some just don't like walking, some unfit, older residents have medical condtions to legs. Some are going to run errands then transfer again (so no extra cost). So your statements are not too valid. Cheers.
Alternatively, what we can do is to continue to have the current route 300 and the proposed new 301.
Except, route 300 skips Ave 5 & route 301 is re-routed.
- 300 (4933.75 metres)
- Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange
- Choa Chu Kang Loop
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2
- Choa Chu Kang Way
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Loop
- Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange
- 301 (5358.98 metres)
- Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange
- Choa Chu Kang Loop
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Way
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 5
- Keat Hong Close
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 5
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2
- Choa Chu Kang Way
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Loop
- Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange
Since the demand for bus connection to Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1 and Avenue 2 is so strong, we should let routes 300 and 301 duplicate at this section (Ave 3 - Ave 1 - Ave 2 - CCK Way - CCK Ave 4 - CCK Loop)
To reduce duplication, what we can do is to revert route 300 back to it's current route, except now we make it skip CCK Ave 5.
To compensate for the loss of connection between CCK Ave 5 and CCK Ave 4, and to provide for a shorter connection to Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange, we can have that new trunk route 983 which has this section in its route:
- ...
- ...
- ...
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 5
- ...
- ...
In short, simply make the current route 300 skip CCK Ave 5, change the planned route 301 and continue to have route 983 as originally planned.
Keep the current route 300 and have new routes 301 and 983.
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
Alternatively, what we can do is to continue to have the current route 300 and the proposed new 301.
Except, route 300 skips Ave 5 & route 301 is re-routed.
- 300 (4933.75 metres)
- Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange
- Choa Chu Kang Loop
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2
- Choa Chu Kang Way
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Loop
- Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange
- 301 (5358.98 metres)
- Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange
- Choa Chu Kang Loop
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Way
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 5
- Keat Hong Close
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 5
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 3
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2
- Choa Chu Kang Way
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Loop
- Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange
Since the demand for bus connection to Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1 and Avenue 2 is so strong, we should let routes 300 and 301 duplicate at this section (Ave 3 - Ave 1 - Ave 2 - CCK Way - CCK Ave 4 - CCK Loop)
To reduce duplication, what we can do is to revert route 300 back to it's current route, except now we make it skip CCK Ave 5.
To compensate for the loss of connection between CCK Ave 5 and CCK Ave 4, and to provide for a shorter connection to Choa Chu Kang Bus Interchange, we can have that new trunk route 983 which has this section in its route:
- ...
- ...
- ...
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4
- Choa Chu Kang Avenue 5
- ...
- ...
In short, simply make the current route 300 skip CCK Ave 5, change the planned route 301 and continue to have route 983 as originally planned.
Keep the current route 300 and have new routes 301 and 983.
Sorry to say but I don't think you understand the loading pattern for this area at all. ave 2 needs connection because there is a pri school there and that's why residents are not happy because their children will no more have direct service. This does not warrant two services to duplicate there because outside of school timings there is not much demand between these two areas.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Sorry to say but I don't think you understand the loading pattern for this area at all. ave 2 needs connection because there is a pri school there and that's why residents are not happy because their children will no more have direct service. This does not warrant two services to duplicate there because outside of school timings there is not much demand between these two areas.
Actually, it's just one and a half bus services. 301 serving both directions, while 300 only serve one direction (loop; as per current routing).If this adjustment to bus network is because of the new HDB developments, I think we should just delete that small "tail" of 300 and have a new feeder serving that area.
Meanwhile, the new feeder may serve Ave 2 to provide for direct connection to bus interchange for people staying there. No need for 300 to become bi-directional.
Even with 301 serving Ave 2, 300 is required to maintain the connection between Ave 2 and Ave 4. Deleting that "tail" can also enable people staying at Ave 4 a shorter bus ride to Ave 2.
Choa Chu Kang Primary School is not the only reason why people go to Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2. There are at least six landmarks at Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2 which people from other parts of Choa Chu Kang may need/want to go. Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2 is somewhat the neighbourhood centre of this section of Choa Chu Kang town.
Just delete that "tail" of 300 and have new 301 serving Ave 2 and Ave 5, and every objectives of this bus network adjustment is met already. Whereas for the connection between Ave 4 and Ave 5, we can let a new trunk bus route provide it. :)
Anyway, I am sure the people in the official groups involved in this bus network adjustment know which are the bus connections the people at Choa Chu Kang West need/want. Hopefully this can be read by the people who are really in the official groups involved in this adjustment. This suggestion of mine is to help them decide on the final plan.
-
Out of the 4 services LTA promised in Q1, not even one launched yet.
Since already declared, 2 services will be launched in April, I think March round will see only SBST services.
1. Punggol - Tampines service
2. Margaret Dr short trunk
I am excited about Punggol - Tampines service. I think it will be another hit like 50/972. Lets just hope they don't screw up the routing this time around.
So maybe in one more week, we should have announcement for these 2 services.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Out of the 4 services LTA promised in Q1, not even one launched yet.
Since already declared, 2 services will be launched in April, I think March round will see only SBST services.
1. Punggol - Tampines service
2. Margaret Dr short trunk
I am excited about Punggol - Tampines service. I think it will be another hit like 50/972. Lets just hope they don't screw up the routing this time around.
So maybe in one more week, we should have announcement for these 2 services.
i also excite about tamp svc. i hope go from my house.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Out of the 4 services LTA promised in Q1, not even one launched yet.
Since already declared, 2 services will be launched in April, I think March round will see only SBST services.
1. Punggol - Tampines service
2. Margaret Dr short trunk
I am excited about Punggol - Tampines service. I think it will be another hit like 50/972. Lets just hope they don't screw up the routing this time around.
So maybe in one more week, we should have announcement for these 2 services.
Q1 is between December of the previous year and April of the year, not inclusive of the first and last month; January, February, March. It is still not March.
This month, one of the four new bus routes was launched. It is the extension to double the length of existing feeder bus route 386. I guess there will be at least one more new bus route before April.
-
Im not too excited about the Pgl-Tam svc,Those in Northwest,Sembawang or even Rochor need a couple of new svc..How about 23 terminate at Rochor Terminal?Still got 1-2 lots for new svc..Ppl alight from Cross border svc can take the svc back to Bedok/Tampines
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
Q1 is between December of the previous year and April of the year, not inclusive of the first and last month; January, February, March. It is still not March.
This month, one of the four new bus routes was launched. It is the extension to double the length of existing feeder bus route 386. I guess there will be at least one more new bus route before April.
386 not counted
Originally meant to be:
122
164
301
983