Originally posted by wsy1234:i thought there is a bus service 32?
not enough mah.. cos new flats coming up (although completing in 2020),,,
they should just amend sv120 to go via margaret drive and then go back along commonwealth ave and turn back to alexandra road towards telok blangah... for the other direction, turn left to commonwealth ave and make a u-turn at the queensway junction and go into margaret drive and then towards redhill...
Originally posted by lemon1974:not enough mah.. cos new flats coming up (although completing in 2020),,,
they should just amend sv120 to go via margaret drive and then go back along commonwealth ave and turn back to alexandra road towards telok blangah... for the other direction, turn left to commonwealth ave and make a u-turn at the queensway junction and go into margaret drive and then towards redhill...
They could have very well done that... but LTA wants to show every other month how many improvements, new services it is bringing forward. This would not have been possible with amended 120. Hence, they introduce more and more services with a small part that is unique and major part that is duplicated.
...
I propose that Sv 123 be amended via Redhill Estate and Kay Siang Rd & Margret Dr
From Jalan Bt Merah:
Hoy Fatt Rd
Lengkok Bahru
Redhill Rd
Redhill Close
Tiong Bahru Rd (Redhill Stn)
Tanglin Rd
Kay Siang Rd
Margret Dr
Queensway (u-turn)
and continue normally to Orchard.
Then no need for 122.
Originally posted by mwhale7886:I propose that Sv 123 be amended via Redhill Estate and Kay Siang Rd & Margret Dr
From Jalan Bt Merah:
Hoy Fatt Rd
Lengkok Bahru
Redhill Rd
Redhill Close
Tiong Bahru Rd (Redhill Stn)
Tanglin Rd
Kay Siang Rd
Margret Dr
Queensway (u-turn)
and continue normally to Orchard.
Then no need for 122.
123 frequency is quite terrible. I prefer having short distance services like 122 thus the frequency more secure
Originally posted by mwhale7886:I propose that Sv 123 be amended via Redhill Estate and Kay Siang Rd & Margret Dr
From Jalan Bt Merah:
Hoy Fatt Rd
Lengkok Bahru
Redhill Rd
Redhill Close
Tiong Bahru Rd (Redhill Stn)
Tanglin Rd
Kay Siang Rd
Margret Dr
Queensway (u-turn)
and continue normally to Orchard.
Then no need for 122.
That would be a good move... But more buses will be needed with this amendment. I agree with user TIB1112L on the frequency issue, which is really the only problem with 123 currently imo. 123M only helps out on the HarbourFront - Tiong Bahru sector, so I hope they can add 2 buses to the full route of 123 in the next round soon... I'm quite sure the loading has increased much since the extension to HarbourFront. 123M is doing quite well, though bunching is prevalent.
As for 122, I'm shocked with the decision to start from New Bridge Road Ter. I seriously thought it should start from Bukit Merah, which still has so much space for new services. One of the few areas neglected for long... If your amendment for 123 works, 122 can start from Bukit Merah to perhaps Eunos Int?
Originally posted by 23ispolo:That would be a good move... But more buses will be needed with this amendment. I agree with user TIB1112L on the frequency issue, which is really the only problem with 123 currently imo. 123M only helps out on the HarbourFront - Tiong Bahru sector, so I hope they can add 2 buses to the full route of 123 in the next round soon... I'm quite sure the loading has increased much since the extension to HarbourFront. 123M is doing quite well, though bunching is prevalent.
As for 122, I'm shocked with the decision to start from New Bridge Road Ter. I seriously thought it should start from Bukit Merah, which still has so much space for new services. One of the few areas neglected for long... If your amendment for 123 works, 122 can start from Bukit Merah to perhaps Eunos Int?
Please note 123 has many alternatives along its route and the loading is not very good. Hence, adding buses is again a loss. For the part where the loading is very high, 123M has been rightfully introduced.
Yes I am equally shocked that 122 was added to NBR when Bukit Merah has space and would have been a better routing via Redhill Close that does not have service. Already NBR has high loading services 2, 12, 174, 190 and in addition 120, 121. Really adding one more service and make it ply the same Tiong Bahru stretch where so many alternatives are available?
They could have easily re-routed 120 or 121.
120 as lemon proposed. 121 extent to Buona Vista and start from there instead of NBR as Outram - Tiong Bahru stretch of 121 hardly finds many pax. So many services in the area that even services like 64 have lost their loading. 51 loading along Havelock-Alexandra also gone low.
Originally posted by 23ispolo:That would be a good move... But more buses will be needed with this amendment. I agree with user TIB1112L on the frequency issue, which is really the only problem with 123 currently imo. 123M only helps out on the HarbourFront - Tiong Bahru sector, so I hope they can add 2 buses to the full route of 123 in the next round soon... I'm quite sure the loading has increased much since the extension to HarbourFront. 123M is doing quite well, though bunching is prevalent.
As for 122, I'm shocked with the decision to start from New Bridge Road Ter. I seriously thought it should start from Bukit Merah, which still has so much space for new services. One of the few areas neglected for long... If your amendment for 123 works, 122 can start from Bukit Merah to perhaps Eunos Int?
If 122 had at least started from Bt Merah I (and most likely you too) wouldn't have been so disappointed. Also, Eunos?
I wonder if New Bridge Rd Ter will face parking crunch,Right now already like pasar malam and even 190 lots are being park by SBST buses..They need to amend couple of svc to end somewhere..
Probably 54 Bishan loop at Upp Cross St?
Originally posted by TPS Timothy Mok:Already needed new service from Sengkang or Punggol to Tampines - allow DD instead of 27 because 27 cannot use DD, and reduce bunching frequency from 1-2 mins to 8 mins.
Should start from Buangkok Interchange when completed... Or chop up 27 into two.
118: Hougang - Tampines/Pasir Ris
27: Tampines - Changi Airport
For my suggested deployments for 118 and 27, go to Your Own Deployments thread.
Should extend to Marina South next time if possible, and completed, these west-bound services are riped for extension eastwards
Originally posted by 23ispolo:That would be a good move... But more buses will be needed with this amendment. I agree with user TIB1112L on the frequency issue, which is really the only problem with 123 currently imo. 123M only helps out on the HarbourFront - Tiong Bahru sector, so I hope they can add 2 buses to the full route of 123 in the next round soon... I'm quite sure the loading has increased much since the extension to HarbourFront. 123M is doing quite well, though bunching is prevalent.
As for 122, I'm shocked with the decision to start from New Bridge Road Ter. I seriously thought it should start from Bukit Merah, which still has so much space for new services. One of the few areas neglected for long... If your amendment for 123 works, 122 can start from Bukit Merah to perhaps Eunos Int?
I guess 122 terminating at New Bridge Road Ter is to connect people to NEL as well, though I agree that it would be better for 122 to terminate at Bukit Merah Int.
Originally posted by SBS3004X:Should start from Buangkok Interchange when completed... Or chop up 27 into two.
118: Hougang - Tampines/Pasir Ris
27: Tampines - Changi Airport
This is fine but you will still need 27E from Hougang to Changi. So basically have 3 services.
27E - Hougang Interchange / Changi Airport (loop) via TPE/PIE without entering Tampines - full fleet SD
44 - Pasir Ris Interchage / Changi Airport (loop) via Pasir Ris Dr 1 >> Tampines Ave 10 >> following current 27 route to Changi Airport - full fleet SD
47 - Hougang Interchange / Tampines Interchange via current 27 route, terminate at Tampines Concourse via ave 9, 7, 4, 5. - majority DD fleet
Originally posted by carbikebus:Probably 54 Bishan loop at Upp Cross St?
Can extend 54 to Bukit Merah Interchange.
IMO, no need so complicated.
Just have at 27M from hougang central and loop at tampines central with the exact 27 route. This route can use majority DD fleet.
I was thinking service 27 could just skip tampines and go to airport straight. but this might cause unhappiness amongst tampines residents who will lose a direct airport connection, even though most people could walk abit further to take 34. Depending on whether lta is willing to do that, 27 can be ammended to be airport direct from sengkang or stay as it is. There is no necessity to make 27 a direct airport access for sengkang/hougang residents because those who wish to go to the airport faster can transfer to 858. But 858 frequency should increase to accommodate more people who are willing to do the transfer (the bus is mostly full when it reaches sengkang alr)
If lta chooses to ammend 27 to airport direct from sengkang, a different service number like 47 will be more appropriate for the 27M I suggested.
Originally posted by randomguy10:IMO, no need so complicated.
Just have at 27M from hougang central and loop at tampines central with the exact 27 route. This route can use majority DD fleet.
I was thinking service 27 could just skip tampines and go to airport straight. but this might cause unhappiness amongst tampines residents who will lose a direct airport connection, even though most people could walk abit further to take 34. Depending on whether lta is willing to do that, 27 can be ammended to be airport direct from sengkang or stay as it is. There is no necessity to make 27 a direct airport access for sengkang/hougang residents because those who wish to go to the airport faster can transfer to 858. But 858 frequency should increase to accommodate more people who are willing to do the transfer (the bus is mostly full when it reaches sengkang alr)
Hi mr randomguy10, the suggestion for 27M from Hougang to loop at tampines is good. Sbs 27 to skip tampines and go straight to airport is no good. Sbs 27 and sbs 34 catch different segments of people at tampines to go to airport. Don't even think of using smrt 858 as an alternative for people thinking of transfer. Smrt 858 is full most of the times as it brings woodlands, admiralty, sembawang, canberra, yishun people to airport. By the time it reaches TPE stop for transfer, it is super crowded. Smrt 858 is meant for northern singapore to airport. Sbs 27 is meant for Hougang/buangkok/sengkang to airport. Sbs 34 is meant for Punggol to airport. The loading for all 3 services are very high. Cheers.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr randomguy10, the suggestion for 27M from Hougang to loop at tampines is good. Sbs 27 to skip tampines and go straight to airport is no good. Sbs 27 and sbs 34 catch different segments of people at tampines to go to airport. Don't even think of using smrt 858 as an alternative for people thinking of transfer. Smrt 858 is full most of the times as it brings woodlands, admiralty, sembawang, canberra, yishun people to airport. By the time it reaches TPE stop for transfer, it is super crowded. Smrt 858 is meant for northern singapore to airport. Sbs 27 is meant for Hougang/buangkok/sengkang to airport. Sbs 34 is meant for Punggol to airport. The loading for all 3 services are very high. Cheers.
Just to add on:
If Svc 27 Tampines sector is removed, Svc 168's loading will literally fly up sky high. Those pax who board at MRT do not only head towards Sengkang/Hougang/Woodlands, they also head towards Ave 9. Yes, Svc 72 also heads towards Ave 9, but when you have 2 high-frequency services calling at a stop beside the MRT, will you choose to walk further to the int to take Svc 72?
Also, M/SWT varients normally use whatever their parent route are using. Hence even if we suggest 27M countless times and hope it will receive DDs, the most we will probably get is full SDs, simply because 27 is a full SD fleet service. If you need more proof of this, look at every CGA/full-fleet SD SWT's fleet. If the PTO logic is like this, there is nothing much we can do about it, at least not without the whole country complaining.
And if you are wondering why SWT 139A (prior to introduction of 139M) have a crossover DD, IIRC, Svc 139 did have a DD in its fleet. Its parent route have a DD, hence a DD is deployed.
Originally posted by ButIAmAToilet:Just to add on:
If Svc 27 Tampines sector is removed, Svc 168's loading will literally fly up sky high. Those pax who board at MRT do not only head towards Sengkang/Hougang/Woodlands, they also head towards Ave 9. Yes, Svc 72 also heads towards Ave 9, but when you have 2 high-frequency services calling at a stop beside the MRT, will you choose to walk further to the int to take Svc 72?
Also, M/SWT varients normally use whatever their parent route are using. Hence even if we suggest 27M countless times and hope it will receive DDs, the most we will probably get is full SDs, simply because 27 is a full SD fleet service. If you need more proof of this, look at every CGA/full-fleet SD SWT's fleet. If the PTO logic is like this, there is nothing much we can do about it, at least not without the whole country complaining.
And if you are wondering why SWT 139A (prior to introduction of 139M) have a crossover DD, IIRC, Svc 139 did have a DD in its fleet. Its parent route have a DD, hence a DD is deployed.
You cannot just remove the Tampines sector... You need another service to complement it if 27 to CGA bypasses Tampines... Also, a lot of sv 72 pax alight along Tampines ave 9.. I wouldn't say that people prefer 27/168 to ave 9, because with 5-7 min frequency on sv 72 from Tampines, a lot of people do take this one as well.
I think "A" and "M" might be operated differently. M services have dedicated buses while A services are drawn from parent service. So definitely possible for 27M to get DDs.
How bout a new svc from Sengkang via Jln Kayu to Airport?
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z1_4m64WVCfo.ka5gi_TwpqVs
Route Suggestion: Townlink 223
Sv 34 has a more extensive coverage of Tampines area than Sv 27.
I noticed that if 27 were to go directly to CGA from Sengkang:
Residents boarding Sv 27 along Tampines Ave 9 can walk the other side to Tampines Ave 5 to board Sv 34. Current HDB blocks in that area are sandwiched between Ave 5 and Ave 9.
For Tampines Central itself, People boarding Sv. 27 along Tampine Ave 4 can walk the other side to catch Sv. 34 from Tampines ave 5.
The other sectors of Tampines are only served by Sv 34 only anyway.
Correct me if I am wrong. Its just a suggestion. But a 27/27M solution is what I would suggest. The 27/47 suggestion I said is of course more drastic.
For Service 858, I do agree of the high loadings to airport from northern Singapore but as a resident in Sengkang, I still choose to take 858 from TPE instead of taking 27 through tampines even if I have to squeeze (but I know this will not be everybody's preference). If frequency is increased, maybe it could help reduce crowds when the bus arrives at Sengkang? Its a pity that 858 cannot use high capacity buses really. I always hoped CGA would do something to make the PTB turns wider so that a bendy could pass through but it has never happened. DDs wise, I guess thats more far fetched because the height restrictions will be far harder to modify
113A can be a full day service under BSEP. Park at Kovan