Originally posted by SBS9252G:
Amend 95 to terminate at Clementi Int
- Normal Route
- Kent Ridge Crescent
- Clementi Rd
- Clementi Ave 2
- Clementi Ave 5
- Clementi Ave 4 (No stop)
- Clementi Ave 3
Why terminate 95 at Clementi? Your intention is for the residents or for the students population?
96 already connect Clementi to Kent Ridge. The 95 extension would only add to the jams in Clementi and result in more unpredictable waiting time. The student population can always take the NUS internal shuttle bus from the Kent Ridge terminal to other parts of NUS. And for non-residents in Clementi, they always have the MRT options to Kent Ridge available.
Did you forget about 198 that ply along AYE? That serves NUS/NUH too.
Clementi is already well connected, adding more bus services may deteriorate the traffic conditions there, an important factor to consider, when thinking on putting more bus services there.
You probably wanted 92 to be extended into Clementi too.
Originally posted by SMB145B:(Originally posted at this thread)
Sembawang Int is bulit to better manage services in the area. This interchange has no feeder services. However, the small amount of services may need to expand fast. BSEP has added 117, 859B and 882A. It has also modified 859A. The upcoming Canberra sub-divison will also need services.
I have no idea how much more it would take before exploding.
With regards to the above.
Essentially 859 still exists because of the link between western Sembawang (Sembawang Cres / Dr / Admiralty Dr) and Yishun. If we patch that up, it'll save a lot of trouble.
Suggestion A: merge northern 811 and southern 859, number as 859. Current 859A/B convert to feeder, renumber as 879A/B. Southern 811 will now standalone as a feeder.
What remains of northern 811 and the old 859 are all still served by 117 and 856.
Pro: Western and northern Sembawang's links to Yishun would be preserved.
Con: Direct link between Yishun Ave 5 & 7, as well as north and south Yishun would be lost. May result in serious bunching problems. Also deteoriates Yishun Int's crowding problem, but this could be mitigated by diverting a Yishun trunk to do southern 811.
Suggestion B: cut short 859's route in Sembawang and give 879A/B a major fleet boost for ease of transfer. 811 untouched.
812 can now be modified to do the new St 51 area (while preserving the link to Ave 4).
Suggestion C: Similar to A. Current 859A/B convert to feeder, renumber as 879A/B. Start 859 at Yishun and loop at Admiralty Link / Lane to preserve the link to Yishun (Canberra Rd already has 856). Extend one Yishun trunk to Sembawang via inner Canberra to make up for the difference. (Preferrably 853 or 855, given Geylang & Harbourfront's capability for a minor fleet add. Or 857, if it can terminate at Marina Centre or Shenton Way)
Suggestion D: Current 859A/B convert to feeder, renumber as 879A/B. Remove 859. Introduce 856W, variant of 856, to do lost sectors of 859 along Sembawang Cres, Admiralty Dr, Sembawang Dr & Admiralty Link.
Overall, it is best to consider all of Sembawang, Canberra and Yishun as a whole multi-town system before making any route changes to improve efficiency, as any changes (particularly in Sembawang) will have quite some impacts on neighbouring towns.
Originally posted by AJQZC:No space at either of the bus interchanges. West side still has Bt Batok and east side has AMDEP, but routing to either seems counterproductive. Thomson - Serangoon section also duplicates 156, Petir - Whitley Rd duplicates 966.
Other than those, it's nice to see new links.
For Serangoon, the route can be extended to future Bidadari Int...
Finally figured out how to merge 102 and 324 without any loss in bus stops.
Service 102 & 324 merger:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zvASY1AjT64M.kGFQKtlhaUdY&usp=sharing
- 324 to be withdrawn; 102 to be amended to Upp Serangoon Cres & View in both directions
- Save resources
- Provide better inter-town connection for Upp Serangoon Cres/View residents
Cons:
- Route too confusing
- Increased travelling time between Hougang and Buangkok Dr etc
Hi. I would like to recommend a new bus service, specially dedicated to the people who travel across the causeway everyday to attend our Singapore schools.
The bus service runs between Larkin Bus Terminal and Buona Vista Bus Terminal, calling at only bus stops next to the education institutions.
Bus Service 210
> Larkin
Length = 32 km
Estimated Travel Time = 46 mins (if no jams)
In the reverse direction, the route, length and time is about the same.
Svc 301's loop at CCK Ave 5 always seems confusing to me... Especially since now it is amended to Keat Hong Close. Maybe we can try this:
Service 301: Choa Chu Kang - Keat Hong Close (Loop)
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zvASY1AjT64M.kU6930X82zd0&usp=sharing
- Amended to ply Ave 5 in both directions
- Relieves load on 983 to some extent, as Ave 5 residents can just board whichever service that comes first
- Link between Ave 2 and Ave 5 is still conserved
- Ave 6 bus stop still covered by 983
Cons:
- Increased travelling time from Keat Hong Close to CCK Int
- Increased travelling time for some parts of Ave 5 to Ave 2 / CCK Int
'NEW' Service 47 and service 135 extension:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zvASY1AjT64M.k-rI82ZcrfeU&usp=sharing
- Re-route 47 (almost completely) from Changi Business Park to Toa Payoh, via Bedok, Chai Chee, Kaki Bukit Ave 3, Bartley Rd East and Potong Pasir
- Extend 135 to Changi Business Park
- Greater coverage of more residential areas (i.e. Bedok, Chai Chee, Bidadari, Potong Pasir and Toa Payoh) to CBP via 47; Also functions as an inter-town route between these towns
- 47 provides quite express and fast journey to CBP, so that commuters using NSL/NEL can also transfer to 47 at Toa Payoh / Woodleigh respectively, and the time taken MAY be comparable to MRT?
- Serves Bartley Rd East and Kaki Bukit Ave 3 (which do not have services today), linking them to various MRT lines (in fact, all lines)
- Can have more DDs on 47 which justify the loading
- 135 extension provides more direct link from Marine Parade to CBP, and partially replaces old 47
Cons:
- Loss of link between CBP and Bedok South
- Loss of link at original 47's looping point
- 135's extended sector may not have enough loading
Originally posted by array88:Svc 301's loop at CCK Ave 5 always seems confusing to me... Especially since now it is amended to Keat Hong Close. Maybe we can try this:
Service 301: Choa Chu Kang - Keat Hong Close (Loop)
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zvASY1AjT64M.kU6930X82zd0&usp=sharing
- Amended to ply Ave 5 in both directions
- Relieves load on 983 to some extent, as Ave 5 residents can just board whichever service that comes first
- Link between Ave 2 and Ave 5 is still conserved
- Ave 6 bus stop still covered by 983
Cons:
- Increased travelling time from Keat Hong Close to CCK Int
- Increased travelling time for some parts of Ave 5 to Ave 2 / CCK Int
I think current new diversion for 301 is okay. Currently the loading on 301 is just good and as a back up service to 300/983. You don't see full buses unlike on 300/983 except for peak hours when the queue on 300/983 is long.
This will give dedicated patronage for 301 for Keat Hong Close HDBs - we may see some fleet add as well to cater to this.
At same time those from ave 5 will now prefer to take 983 even more given that 301 will loop around Keat Hong Close and will take more time.
I feel the current CCK feeder/short trunk network is nicely done to cover the whole new town. Keat Hong Close HDBs will now have to walk to ave 5 to take bus to BPJ unlike before when 983 was also planned to call at Keat Hong Close.
Originally posted by array88:'NEW' Service 47 and service 135 extension:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zvASY1AjT64M.k-rI82ZcrfeU&usp=sharing
- Re-route 47 (almost completely) from Changi Business Park to Toa Payoh, via Bedok, Chai Chee, Kaki Bukit Ave 3, Bartley Rd East and Potong Pasir
- Extend 135 to Changi Business Park
- Greater coverage of more residential areas (i.e. Bedok, Chai Chee, Bidadari, Potong Pasir and Toa Payoh) to CBP via 47; Also functions as an inter-town route between these towns
- 47 provides quite express and fast journey to CBP, so that commuters using NSL/NEL can also transfer to 47 at Toa Payoh / Woodleigh respectively, and the time taken MAY be comparable to MRT?
- Serves Bartley Rd East and Kaki Bukit Ave 3 (which do not have services today), linking them to various MRT lines (in fact, all lines)
- Can have more DDs on 47 which justify the loading
- 135 extension provides more direct link from Marine Parade to CBP, and partially replaces old 47
Cons:
- Loss of link between CBP and Bedok South
- Loss of link at original 47's looping point
- 135's extended sector may not have enough loading
There won't be any change to 47 now since it is already introduced. We may have to observe a bit more carefully in coming months before we take a call on 47. There are lot of people in Bedok South / Marine Parade who work at CBP. If 47 is fast, they will move from current mode of feeder/MRT-walk or private bus to sv 47.
I feel there will be a new service (preferably extension of existing service) to CBP for Bedok North.
I have already made 2 proposals:
(1) extension of 45 to CBP via Tanah Merah (con: missing link of UEC to Tanah Merah and Bedok North, though covered by sv 14, may need another service)
(2) extension of 26 to CBP via route diversion through Kembangan, Chai Chee, Bedok North St 3 estate, Bedok North Ave 2, Bedok North Road, TNM.
(3) 45 goes to CBP while extended 26 goes to UEC. The advantage of 45 going to CBP is that it already has DDs and will connect Serangoon, Hougang South, Eunos North area to CBP as well.
Originally posted by array88:Finally figured out how to merge 102 and 324 without any loss in bus stops.
Service 102 & 324 merger:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zvASY1AjT64M.kGFQKtlhaUdY&usp=sharing
- 324 to be withdrawn; 102 to be amended to Upp Serangoon Cres & View in both directions
- Save resources
- Provide better inter-town connection for Upp Serangoon Cres/View residents
Cons:
- Route too confusing
- Increased travelling time between Hougang and Buangkok Dr etc
Even if confusing, I still support it. Currently, there is NO need for a service at Upper Serangoon View. 324 on most accounts gets 0 pax as the condo is under construction, school has access on Upp Serangoon road with sv 62, 102, 136.
102 can ply Upp Serangoon Crescent bi-directional. Will save parking space and resources at HCI. 324 gets 20-25 pax during peak hours. Off peak is <10 pax on most buses. 102 gets also 15-25 pax during peak hours from HCI. 102 with its DDs i enough to manage 40-50 pax from HCI to Upper Serangoon/Buangkok Dr. Even if a Citaro is plied, can still tank the load.
Too much wasted resources and poor planning in launching 324.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:There won't be any change to 47 now since it is already introduced. We may have to observe a bit more carefully in coming months before we take a call on 47. There are lot of people in Bedok South / Marine Parade who work at CBP. If 47 is fast, they will move from current mode of feeder/MRT-walk or private bus to sv 47.
I feel there will be a new service (preferably extension of existing service) to CBP for Bedok North.
I have already made 2 proposals:
(1) extension of 45 to CBP via Tanah Merah (con: missing link of UEC to Tanah Merah and Bedok North, though covered by sv 14, may need another service)
(2) extension of 26 to CBP via route diversion through Kembangan, Chai Chee, Bedok North St 3 estate, Bedok North Ave 2, Bedok North Road, TNM.
(3) 45 goes to CBP while extended 26 goes to UEC. The advantage of 45 going to CBP is that it already has DDs and will connect Serangoon, Hougang South, Eunos North area to CBP as well.
Originally posted by Sbs6750E:
how about extend 25 or 87 to CBP instead?
Nope. Those are super high loading services. Better not to touch.
Q2 2016 in Punggol, HDB Edge and Waterway Sundew will open for occupancy
Both these HDBs are at the opposite ends of Edgedale plains. Given that the inner HDBs are far from Punggol Field or Punggol Dr, there needs to be a service to cater to needs of people who will live here.
Given that Punggol Interchange has no space, logical move for me is to use existing services to provide more connectivity.
Here's my proposal in the map:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zAHrqvntcAUY.k59D9gsEWJ7A&usp=sharing
(1) 83 should be diverted to call at a stop in both directions along Edgedale Plains to serve HDB Edge. 83 will also do Compassalve Crescent with 2 new stops, nullyfing current one at Compassalve St to cater to Compassalve Broadwalk HDB that opens in same time frame. This will boost service 83 loading that today has dropped to a great extent. So existing service can be used in a more useful way.
(2) Feeder 386 will call at a stop in both directions along Edgedale Plains end to cater to Sundew HDB. This will also connect Sundew like Banks/Ridges HDB along Edgefield Plains end to Punggol Plaza/Punggol Field to transfer to other services + basic amenities. No need new service as 386 has capacity to take on more loading.
I hope LTA considers to implement these 2 suggestions.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Q2 2016 in Punggol, HDB Edge and Waterway Sundew will open for occupancy
Both these HDBs are at the opposite ends of Edgedale plains. Given that the inner HDBs are far from Punggol Field or Punggol Dr, there needs to be a service to cater to needs of people who will live here.
Given that Punggol Interchange has no space, logical move for me is to use existing services to provide more connectivity.
Here's my proposal in the map:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zAHrqvntcAUY.k59D9gsEWJ7A&usp=sharing
(1) 83 should be diverted to call at a stop in both directions along Edgedale Plains to serve HDB Edge. 83 will also do Compassalve Crescent with 2 new stops, nullyfing current one at Compassalve St to cater to Compassalve Broadwalk HDB that opens in same time frame. This will boost service 83 loading that today has dropped to a great extent. So existing service can be used in a more useful way.
(2) Feeder 386 will call at a stop in both directions along Edgedale Plains end to cater to Sundew HDB. This will also connect Sundew like Banks/Ridges HDB along Edgefield Plains end to Punggol Plaza/Punggol Field to transfer to other services + basic amenities. No need new service as 386 has capacity to take on more loading.
I hope LTA considers to implement these 2 suggestions.
Hi mr busanalyser, sad to dampen your spirit. Don't think that will ever happen. LTA will most likely not divert 2 existing bus services to do this type of issues. The more logical way is to quickly start expanding Punggol bus interchange as soon as possible and get another feeder service to serve the edgedale plains end and also Punggol east end.
Have they really so bothered about not introducing new services and only used existing services, they will not have introduced Sbs 382G/W. They will have used either sbs 117 or 118 to cover certain sectors of 382G/W plus amended Sbs 119 to cover a bit of 382G. Instead they realized the inconvenience posed and introduced a new service.
Sbs 83 will definitely not go into edgedale plains end as it will cause great inconvenience. Sbs 386 still has chances to go in but then how many can you control? Sbs 386 goes into edgefield plains end currently and you want it go into edgedale plains end (just to avoid introducing new service and to maximize its loading). So how about Punggol east end??? There is also no bus there at the moment. Sbs 386 to go in as well? No right? If there are so many unserved roads and the time calls for a new service to be introduced, it has to be introduced. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Q2 2016 in Punggol, HDB Edge and Waterway Sundew will open for occupancy
Both these HDBs are at the opposite ends of Edgedale plains. Given that the inner HDBs are far from Punggol Field or Punggol Dr, there needs to be a service to cater to needs of people who will live here.
Given that Punggol Interchange has no space, logical move for me is to use existing services to provide more connectivity.
Here's my proposal in the map:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zAHrqvntcAUY.k59D9gsEWJ7A&usp=sharing
(1) 83 should be diverted to call at a stop in both directions along Edgedale Plains to serve HDB Edge. 83 will also do Compassalve Crescent with 2 new stops, nullyfing current one at Compassalve St to cater to Compassalve Broadwalk HDB that opens in same time frame. This will boost service 83 loading that today has dropped to a great extent. So existing service can be used in a more useful way.
(2) Feeder 386 will call at a stop in both directions along Edgedale Plains end to cater to Sundew HDB. This will also connect Sundew like Banks/Ridges HDB along Edgefield Plains end to Punggol Plaza/Punggol Field to transfer to other services + basic amenities. No need new service as 386 has capacity to take on more loading.
I hope LTA considers to implement these 2 suggestions.
Access denied...
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Q2 2016 in Punggol, HDB Edge and Waterway Sundew will open for occupancy
Both these HDBs are at the opposite ends of Edgedale plains. Given that the inner HDBs are far from Punggol Field or Punggol Dr, there needs to be a service to cater to needs of people who will live here.
Given that Punggol Interchange has no space, logical move for me is to use existing services to provide more connectivity.
Here's my proposal in the map:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zAHrqvntcAUY.k59D9gsEWJ7A&usp=sharing
(1) 83 should be diverted to call at a stop in both directions along Edgedale Plains to serve HDB Edge. 83 will also do Compassalve Crescent with 2 new stops, nullyfing current one at Compassalve St to cater to Compassalve Broadwalk HDB that opens in same time frame. This will boost service 83 loading that today has dropped to a great extent. So existing service can be used in a more useful way.
(2) Feeder 386 will call at a stop in both directions along Edgedale Plains end to cater to Sundew HDB. This will also connect Sundew like Banks/Ridges HDB along Edgefield Plains end to Punggol Plaza/Punggol Field to transfer to other services + basic amenities. No need new service as 386 has capacity to take on more loading.
I hope LTA considers to implement these 2 suggestions.
Access denied
All, here is the link with access changed.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zAHrqvntcAUY.k59D9gsEWJ7A&usp=sharing
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr busanalyser, sad to dampen your spirit. Don't think that will ever happen. LTA will most likely not divert 2 existing bus services to do this type of issues. The more logical way is to quickly start expanding Punggol bus interchange as soon as possible and get another feeder service to serve the edgedale plains end and also Punggol east end.
Have they really so bothered about not introducing new services and only used existing services, they will not have introduced Sbs 382G/W. They will have used either sbs 117 or 118 to cover certain sectors of 382G/W plus amended Sbs 119 to cover a bit of 382G. Instead they realized the inconvenience posed and introduced a new service.
Sbs 83 will definitely not go into edgedale plains end as it will cause great inconvenience. Sbs 386 still has chances to go in but then how many can you control? Sbs 386 goes into edgefield plains end currently and you want it go into edgedale plains end (just to avoid introducing new service and to maximize its loading). So how about Punggol east end??? There is also no bus there at the moment. Sbs 386 to go in as well? No right? If there are so many unserved roads and the time calls for a new service to be introduced, it has to be introduced. Cheers. Thanks.
No worries mate. There are many things you said earlier that cannot happen, have happened. LTA is also getting better.
Sorry but 119/117/118 cannot do what 382G/W does. It was required.
Likewise 386 is required, but Edgedale Plains end gets only Sundew open in Q2 2016. Waterway View HDB opens only Q3 2017. New service for one HDB block? Better not divert 386 that has poor loading than introduce new service and waste resource, clog interchange space more? 386 has capacity to take on more.
As for Punggol East end, the HDB opens only in Q4 2017. Why even bother about it now? It is 2 years from now. I am speaking about changes that should happen in Q2 to better meet customer needs. Also I am editing services that have poor loading today and can meet commuter needs better.
I hope LTA sees the point. Anyway, that's why we name the threas "route suggestions" so that we give these suggestions. i have also written to LTA. Will wait for their response.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:No worries mate. There are many things you said earlier that cannot happen, have happened. LTA is also getting better.
Sorry but 119/117/118 cannot do what 382G/W does. It was required.
Likewise 386 is required, but Edgedale Plains end gets only Sundew open in Q2 2016. Waterway View HDB opens only Q3 2017. New service for one HDB block? Better not divert 386 that has poor loading than introduce new service and waste resource, clog interchange space more? 386 has capacity to take on more.
As for Punggol East end, the HDB opens only in Q4 2017. Why even bother about it now? It is 2 years from now. I am speaking about changes that should happen in Q2 to better meet customer needs. Also I am editing services that have poor loading today and can meet commuter needs better.
I hope LTA sees the point. Anyway, that's why we name the threas "route suggestions" so that we give these suggestions. i have also written to LTA. Will wait for their response.
Hi mr busanalyser, Sbs 117/118 can do what 382G/W does. Why not? Instead of turning into Punggol field, it goes straight into Punggol way then TPE then continue on normal journey. The only sector not covered will be Punggol field continued to be covered by Sbs 119. Who says why not??? It is just that they don't think it is appropriate. It will be much more convenient to introduce a new service. They are more prone to providing convenience than to make everybody go one round.
With no disrespect to you, I have full confidence that they will reject your Sbs 83 proposal. It is going to provide a lot of inconvenience to Punggol central/east residents. The only thing that looks more probable is Sbs 386. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr busanalyser, Sbs 117/118 can do what 382G/W does. Why not? Instead of turning into Punggol field, it goes straight into Punggol way then TPE then continue on normal journey. The only sector not covered will be Punggol field continued to be covered by Sbs 119. Who says why not??? It is just that they don't think it is appropriate. It will be much more convenient to introduce a new service. They are more prone to providing convenience than to make everybody go one round.
With no disrespect to you, I have full confidence that they will reject your Sbs 83 proposal. It is going to provide a lot of inconvenience to Punggol central/east residents. The only thing that looks more probable is Sbs 386. Cheers. Thanks.
Even I don't think its appropriate. Punggol west and Punggol Matilda need a feeder service. That's why I had proposed 382G/W before.
Regarding 83, I agree that it may not happen. I feel that Edge HDBs will not get any service, and they will have to walk to Punggol Field to take LRT or bus. 386 I feel high chance.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Even I don't think its appropriate. Punggol west and Punggol Matilda need a feeder service. That's why I had proposed 382G/W before.
Regarding 83, I agree that it may not happen. I feel that Edge HDBs will not get any service, and they will have to walk to Punggol Field to take LRT or bus. 386 I feel high chance.
Hi mr busanalyser, it is not that doom and gloomy for Punggol edge HDB residents. Some of the blocks are well within walking distance to TPE bus stop where they have an alavanche of buses. Some other blocks are quite near to meridian LRT and Punggol field. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Following should be the allocation of 38 parking lots
3 - 02 (02 slots at Tampines)
34 - 03
43/M - 04 (43 will have 02 slots at UEC)
50 - 02 (At Bishan, 02 slots)
62 - 03
82 - 02
83 - 02
84 - 01
85 - 02 (given 12-15m frequency, 02 slots are enough, 01 slot at Yishun)
117 - 01 (02-03 slots at Sembawang)
118 - 01 (02-03 slots at CBP)
119 - 02
382 - 02
386 - 01
This makes 28 slots.. still have 10 parking slots. What do you think?
All, please note Punggol bus interchange only has 26 parking lots. The numbers are clearly marked on the ground. It is up 2 from the previous 24. So please ignore all other numbers you see online. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:All, please note Punggol bus interchange only has 26 parking lots. The numbers are clearly marked on the ground. It is up 2 from the previous 24. So please ignore all other numbers you see online. Cheers. Thanks.
that WordPress website is not always accurate. Wikipedia is worse.
Originally posted by jurongresident:that WordPress website is not always accurate. Wikipedia is worse.
Hi mr jurongresident, mine is the most accurate. I observe the marking on the ground inside the interchange myself. Not using any websites. If there are really 38 parking lots for buses, then Punggol interchange will not be so cramped as what people say to be. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr jurongresident, mine is the most accurate. I observe the marking on the ground inside the interchange myself. Not using any websites. If there are really 38 parking lots for buses, then Punggol interchange will not be so cramped as what people say to be. Cheers. Thanks.
Yes you maybe right coz 38 parking slots is quite a lot. That's why I drew it out that there are so many empty spaces then. 24 is a bit short after 3 new service introductions.