Originally posted by SBS7557R:Less of reducing duplication with 147/196/197, but more of reducing duplication with 64 between Orchard all the way up to Aljunied Rd. 64 took over a large portion of 198's deleted sectors minus part of Commonwealth Ave where Queenstown MRT is located.
Hi mr Sbs7557R, noted. Cheers. Thanks.
You all please dont suggest a long distance route anymore,Its not going to happen.Right now buses just bring people near to MRT or within other neighbourhood.In future be prepared to see service like 51 getting chop into 2 pieces..Lol
Dont expect 858 to be amended too soon when SEM is still developing. Never has been news that the interchange will be extended, but then the estate has been planned for new poly and swimming complex, so dont expect them to be amended soon
Originally posted by gekpohboy:If want to split 198, actually can. No one (not many) people actually takes 198 all the way from Boon Lay to Bukit Merah, or from Bukit Merah to Boon Lay. It takes around two hours leh, considering the jam and all the traffic lights. Most people, if not all, would rather take MRT lor.
If want split, I suggest shortening 198 to NUH, and then somehow make it terminate at Kent Ridge Bus Terminal.
The condition is that the new route replacing the skipped section also serve NUH, somewhat duplicate 198 at NUH. So, it's either the new route come from New Bridge Road Bus Terminal (or Marina Centre or Shenton Way), recover the skipped section of 198 and loop around NUH, or the new route also start from Kent Ridge Bus Terminal, go to NUH, recover the skipped section of 198 and loop at the city area.
Actually, I feel that it is better to do something to express bus 502 instead. 502 is too long, and heavily duplicates 99 and 185. We can split 502 into many express routes, actually. One for Jurong West Extension, One for Old Jurong West and Jurong East. We can even have one for Taman Jurong and Teban Gardens, combined.
I suggest a new 502 for Jurong West Extension. It follows the current 502 route between Soon Lee Depot and Corporation Road. It runs express along the PIE, Whitley Road and Stevens road. It follows the current 502 route between Orchard Road and Shenton Way, and then terminate at Shenton Way Bus Terminal. Same frequency as current 502, except now can have more single decker buses than double decker buses.
I suggest a new express route for Old Jurong West and Jurong East. It follows 157 route between Boon Lay Bus Interchange and Jurong Town Hall Road, run until the end of Jurong East Avenue 1, run express along PIE and CTE, somehow meander through the CBD and then terminate at a bus terminal in the CBD. Same frequency as 502. Majority single decker, with some double decker.
I suggest a new express route for Taman Jurong and Teban Gardens. It follows 30 route between Boon Lay Bus Interchange and World Trade Centre, and then somehow run between World Trade Centre and Shenton Way Bus Terminal. It runs express between West Coast Highway and World Trade Centre. It can start with full single decker buses first, then along the way if the loading is encouraging then have some double decker buses in the fleet.
Your ideas are so terrible, it gave me bus cancer.
What 502 currently needs is more SD -> DD conversion, not a split in route. 502's sole purpose is to get people from the West to Orchard, however there's also demand to IMM. Sometimes people in Toh Guan, based on my observation can't board the SD buses due to the staggering amount of people to the door and have to wait for another bus, again in 20 minutes.
A split in 502 would cause a huge resource upgrade for whatever these two services end up being, and 502 doesn't have that much demand in weekdays non-peak to justify that. There's also already 502A in the early morning peak hours via Corporation Road/PIE to give leanway to the possible extra time needed for the frequent jams in Clementi & Orchard.
Your idea of a 198 split, is again terrible. Don't you know there's demand from Jurong West/East Avenue 1 to IKEA/Queensway, and you're cutting the direct link for these people here?
An express route for Taman Jurong and Teban Gardens will prove inefficient due to the small size of the town. May I suggest for Teban Gardens/Pandan residents to take 201 to Teban Flyover, and change to 97, and Taman Jurong residents to take 154 to Teban Flyover, and change to 97 or take 49 to IBP, cross to the opposite busstop and take 97.
502 and 198 remains excellent as it is. No need to change.
880 (SEM - Marine Parade)
via
Sembawang Dr>NSE/PIE>Jalan Eunos>New Upper Changi Rd>Bedok South Ave 3>Upp East Coast Rd>Marine Parade Rd
Might be long but this is just my rough route. Any changes are welcome (especially if 150 is amended this way)
Thoughts?
Originally posted by SMB1368T:880 (SEM - Marine Parade)
via
Sembawang Dr>NSE/PIE>Jalan Eunos>New Upper Changi Rd>Bedok South Ave 3>Upp East Coast Rd>Marine Parade Rd
Might be long but this is just my rough route. Any changes are welcome (especially if 150 is amended this way)
Thoughts?
Route is way too winding if it has to go through Bedok. There's already 12 to East Coast Rd and 47/48 to Marine Parade Rd there. Unless you route via Eunos --> Marine Parade --> Bedok, then I have no comments.
In addition, the direct express from Sembawang to Eunos may not benefit enough commuters to warrant such a long stretch. Unless you add stopovers at Yishun and/or Toa Payoh.
Overall, there could be potential for this service in the future. But not in a way that it could replace 966.
Svc 1:Changi Village--Tampines Industrial Ave 5(Loop) via Loyang Ave/Way,Pasir Ris,Tampines Ave 10.Fleets:4 MB Citaro 2 Volvo B9TL Weg2
Svc 68:Pasir Ris--Tampines St 92(Loop) via Pasir Ris,Tampines Ave 9/8/4/5 St 92
Fleets:3 MB Citaro,2 Volvo B9TL Weg2,2 MAN ND323F
Any comments?
172 Jalan Sungei Poyan > Choa Chu Kang
247 Tuas > Pasir Laba > Poyan > Clementi Road > Jurong East
247e Tuas > Poyan > Ngee Ann Polytechnic > Jurong East (not present at at Pasir Laba)
248 Tuas > Pasir Laba > Poyan > Sarimbun > Murai Farmway > Sungei Gedong MRT > Lim Chu Kang Jetty
250 Bukit Panjang > Bricklands Road > Jln Bahar > Poyan > Sarimbun >Murai Farmway > Lorong Rusuk (loop)
259 Poyan > Jalan Bahar > NTU > Clementi Road > Jalan Anak Bukit (loop)
How about this...
880 (SEM to Upp East Coast Ter)
Via
Canberra Way
Yishun Ave 2
NSE/PIE
Eunos Link
Still Rd
Upp East Coast Rd
Originally posted by SMB1368T:How about this...
880 (SEM to Upp East Coast Ter)
Via
Canberra Way
Yishun Ave 2
NSE/PIE
Eunos Link
Still Rd
Upp East Coast Rd
No need so far,Just a service from Sembawang via Yishun estates/SAP loop at Jln Kayu will be enough.
Originally posted by carbikebus:No need so far,Just a service from Sembawang via Yishun estates/SAP loop at Jln Kayu will be enough.
There's 117 and 858 for that section already.
I was thinking if 858 is amended, 881 (not yet revealed) can replace the lost sectors of 858 along Lentor Ave towards SEM
880 may be a long route, but it might be reserved for future use when SEM and Canberra are mature estates, but depends on demand to enter those areas 880 serves
SMRT/LTA should introduce a new service from Sembawang to Changi Village after the Bt Batok handover.
Originally posted by carbikebus:SMRT/LTA should introduce a new service from Sembawang to Changi Village after the Bt Batok handover.
Is there significant demand to Changi Village? Can still do a transfer from 858 to 89 at the TPE bus stop.
Originally posted by AJQZC:Is there significant demand to Changi Village? Can still do a transfer from 858 to 89 at the TPE bus stop.
Sure have,Benefit for commuters living in North.Can also visit Changi beach and food centre.You sure ask the correct question?
Care to explain how would this route work? Who knows if its great & I might take the idea
Originally posted by SMB1368T:Care to explain how would this route work? Who knows if its great & I might take the idea
You can try..
Actually, there is not much demand for residents to go to Changi Village. Sure there would be demand for those who wish to go to Changi Village, but they rather go to eastern areas where there is a lot more going on there.
Furthermore, you have 9, 19 & 89 coming from outside the terminal. I dont see why they would be crowded except for those who want to go to Changi Cargo Ctr. From what I seen, not even those 4 services are crowded when they enter the terminal. Its not like every part of the day when they are crowded. They would normally be empty after they serve important areas such as Pasir Ris & Simei
If the residents have high demand for a service to Changi Village, I have 1. But as I say they rather go to the eastern areas instead.
881 (SEM - Changi Village)
via
Sembawang Way
Woodlands Ave 7,2
SLE/TPE
Pasir Ris Dr 12,3
Loyang Ave
Originally,
via
Sembawang Way
Woodlands Ave 7,2
SLE/TPE
Pasir Ris Dr 12,3,8
Tampines Ave 7
Tampines Int
The best way to check whether there is high demand for North residents to go to Changi Village is to conduct surveys at the terminal and outside. If more than 50% agree that they want a route from SEM to Changi Village, I will take your idea
Btw, 881 does not serve Lentor Ave on second thought
Originally posted by carbikebus:You all please dont suggest a long distance route anymore,Its not going to happen.Right now buses just bring people near to MRT or within other neighbourhood.In future be prepared to see service like 51 getting chop into 2 pieces..Lol
Route length should be a second consideration for bus services if:
#1 - The service uses expressways to provide a faster journey between 2 - 3 residential estates in Singapore. (Services 39, 85, 161, 168, 965, 966 & 969 are not the shortest of bus services but provide relatively useful connections between the eastern, north-eastern and northern regions of Singapore)
#2 - The service has two terminating points to effectively regulate frequency levels and cater to the deployment of additional buses if necessary.
989 was the longest bus service in Singapore (even longer than 51/61) when in operation and remained a popular choice of travel for the residents of Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Batok to the eastern parts of Singapore until its withdrawal. Thus, route length should be a lower consideration when designing modern day bus services after the consideration of the overall reduced travel time and popularity/demand of the proposed services. Granted, if a permanent bus terminal was built in Changi Airport that allowed termination of bus services, 989 would probably be more efficient, and so are the current long distance airport-bound services such as 24, 53 and 858.
It is nevertheless agreed that 14/51/61 could definitely be split given that no one will take them end-to-end to get to their destinations.
And it is sad if LTA don't think that expressway services, even if of slightly longer distance, could really work out and possibly help in alleviating the high demand of the rail network.
Its because they dont want another 190-like service,Where the usage of buses and manpower is overwhelming when they already built so many rail lines that in some way is windings.
Originally posted by carbikebus:Its because they dont want another 190-like service,Where the usage of buses and manpower is overwhelming when they already built so many rail lines that in some way is windings.
routes like 190 serve way too many groups and patterns of commute at once, sometimes overlapping. thats why sometimes resources are poorly used, extra buses are pumped in to cater for the overcrowded sectors which are a result of overlapping patterns of commute for many people, resulting in wasted capacity for other parts of the route..
eg: CCK > BPJ, CCK > town, BPJ > town
routes should be clear in who they should be serving, point to point.
Originally posted by TIB868X:routes like 190 serve way too many groups and patterns of commute at once, sometimes overlapping. thats why sometimes resources are poorly used, extra buses are pumped in to cater for the overcrowded sectors which are a result of overlapping patterns of commute for many people, resulting in wasted capacity for other parts of the route..
eg: CCK > BPJ, CCK > town, BPJ > town
routes should be clear in who they should be serving, point to point.
And during peak hours its only uni direction compared to off peak..
Originally posted by SBS7557R:Route length should be a second consideration for bus services if:
#1 - The service uses expressways to provide a faster journey between 2 - 3 residential estates in Singapore. (Services 39, 85, 161, 168, 965, 966 & 969 are not the shortest of bus services but provide relatively useful connections between the eastern, north-eastern and northern regions of Singapore)
#2 - The service has two terminating points to effectively regulate frequency levels and cater to the deployment of additional buses if necessary.
989 was the longest bus service in Singapore (even longer than 51/61) when in operation and remained a popular choice of travel for the residents of Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Batok to the eastern parts of Singapore until its withdrawal. Thus, route length should be a lower consideration when designing modern day bus services after the consideration of the overall reduced travel time and popularity/demand of the proposed services. Granted, if a permanent bus terminal was built in Changi Airport that allowed termination of bus services, 989 would probably be more efficient, and so are the current long distance airport-bound services such as 24, 53 and 858.
It is nevertheless agreed that 14/51/61 could definitely be split given that no one will take them end-to-end to get to their destinations.
And it is sad if LTA don't think that expressway services, even if of slightly longer distance, could really work out and possibly help in alleviating the high demand of the rail network.
Agreed, and once again it would be helpful to have an express service linking Toa Payoh and Tampines / Airport, for the PIE bus stop (Trellis Twrs) to be an effective interchange stop.
As for splitting ... do any of 10, 196, 197, 961 warrant cutting as well? And what about 30, it is about as long as 51 and 61, but has a short express sector, so would that qualify it as an express by the two criteria you mentioned?
I was talking about 889 which links between TPY and airport though. You may refer to pg 69 for its route details
Originally posted by TIB868X:routes like 190 serve way too many groups and patterns of commute at once, sometimes overlapping. thats why sometimes resources are poorly used, extra buses are pumped in to cater for the overcrowded sectors which are a result of overlapping patterns of commute for many people, resulting in wasted capacity for other parts of the route..
eg: CCK > BPJ, CCK > town, BPJ > town
routes should be clear in who they should be serving, point to point.
If that's the case, there are many semi-express services that are currently similar in style to sv190. Isn't it? That also includes two recent bus services that the LTA introduced under BSEP.
Sv3: Tampines > Pasir Ris > Punggol
Sv27: Hougang > Sengkang > Tampines > Changi Airport
Sv34: Punggol > Tampines > Changi Airport
Sv39: Tampines > Pasir Ris > Yishun
Sv53: Bishan > Hougang > Pasir Ris > Changi Airport
Sv85: Punggol > Sengkang > Yishun
Sv89: Hougang > Sengkang > Pasir Ris > Changi Airfreight Ctr
Sv89e: Hougang > Sengkang > Changi Airfreight Ctr
Sv117: Punggol > Yishun > Sembawang
Sv118: Punggol > Tampines > Changi Business Park
Sv161: Hougang > Sengkang > Woodlands
Sv168: Bedok > Tampines > Woodlands
Sv858: Woodlands > Sembawang > Yishun > Changi Airport
Sv965: Woodlands > Yishun > Sengkang
Sv969: Woodlands > Yishun > Tampines
It is also true that many of these services have faster alternatives that overlap one another as well:
Tampines to Punggol: 34 or 118 instead of 3
Tampines to Yishun: 969 instead of 39
Hougang to Changi Airfreight Ctr via Sengkang: 89e instead of 89
Sengkang to Woodlands: 161 instead of 965
Tampines to Woodlands: 168 instead of 969
Sv117/118 were both rolled out under BSEP and passed by Yishun first before going to Sembawang and Tampines first before going to Changi Business Park respectively. If the LTA really dislike such extensive detouring, why is 117 routed to pass through Yishun and why is 118 routed to pass through Tampines? While 117 is partially limited by the road structure in Seletar Aerospace Park, 118 could have just used TPE, PIE and Upp Changi Rd East instead for maximum speed and reduced travel time.
Nevertheless, some of the semi-express services listed above, agreeably, do require some level of reorganization and rearrangement to improve their efficiencies and reduce the amount of detouring.
For sv190, one good solution will be to have an Express 190E that plies the same route as sv190, but skips Bukit Panjang totally (using Woodlands Rd > KJE > BKE or Upp Bt Timah Rd > Dairy Farm Rd > BKE). Bukit Panjang is currently also served by sv700/A and sv972, so an additional service between Bukit Panjang and CBD is not necessary.