15 should be amended to ply Still road to Marine Parade loop so that can use DDs. They should have done this change.
Originally posted by SMB128B:How many from MT will actually take the svc beyond PP and PL, realistically speaking? And 134 does the exact same job too. Only a small minority will have to transfer and wait, even if so in a common well-sheltered bus stop. For the rest it's just far more reliable waiting times.
And sorry hor, not everyone could walk okay. Maybe those staying near the big road will prob go ahead without 76/134, but majority of MT ppl stay deeper in, and definitely a bus at the doorstep could help. Furthermore, quite a large part of the residents comprise of elderly. Have you thought about them?
You are quite right, the elderly/some pax really depend on 76 at marine terr to board incl piw. Even tho the freq can go up to 15 mins or so during off peak.
And they even made silver zones for the elderly along marine terr/cres due to it, however I still dont get it that why must they make two lanes into one and the single lane is too narrow.
There is a bottle neck in the morning along the two areas due to the schools nearby some sections of the road should not merge into one lane.
However, still not much publicity of the new 134/76/150 on buses and bus shelters.
But I still feel that from opposite Parkway parade the freqs of both 196/76 could be better managed on weekdays, always end up 196/76 end up together and the next 196 or 76 comes in 10 minutes or so. 134 could improve the bus bunching between 196/76 that often happens, have a feeling 134 will help on that.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:15 should be amended to ply Still road to Marine Parade loop so that can use DDs. They should have done this change.
Limitations:
- Telok Kurau residents will lose direct connection to Parkway Parade
- Marine Parade and Bedok Reservoir residents will lose direct connection to Parkway East Hospital
But then again, 150 can always be extended to loop at Parkway Parade and use red/white plates for Marine Terrace.
Originally posted by array88:
Limitations:- Telok Kurau residents will lose direct connection to Parkway Parade
- Marine Parade and Bedok Reservoir residents will lose direct connection to Parkway East Hospital
But then again, 150 can always be extended to loop at Parkway Parade and use red/white plates for Marine Terrace.
Sorry proposal is to extend 150 to Parkway Parade as current route is too short to be of any good.
15 going direct would provide alternative to 966 to PP / Eunos with DDs.
Originally posted by AJQZC:If only there could be a new bus interchange / terminal in Marina South to house some of these services. It would ease the pressure from Shenton Way / Marina Centre / New Bridge Rd / Harbourfront, can be the start/end point for many express routes on the east / northeast via KPE or ECP (such as 513), and can also potentially be a splitting point for some of the terribly long routes (such as 61, 196).
Are you referring to the future Marina South ITH? Route 857 should be given first priority for this one. Other services can include 23, 62 & 970. 120-122 can relocate there too.
Route 23: Tampines-Marina South (with variant 23A doing the current loop at Rochor Canal). From Jln Besar, use Bencoolen St, Middle Rd, North/South Bridge Rds, Upp Pickering St, Church St and Marina Blvd.
Route 62: Punggol-Marina South. From Geylang Rd, use Kallang Rd, Crawford St, Republic Ave/Blvd and Bayfront Ave.
Route 857: Yishun-Marina South. From Temasek Ave, use Bayfront Ave.
Route 970: Bukit Panjang-Marina South. From Church St, use Marina Blvd.
120-122 follow 970 route.
Originally posted by array88:If LTA shortened 76 just because of its reliability as a long looping service, there are thousands of better amendments they should look into.
55, 135, 155: Simply build a roadside terminal at Siglap.
62: Simply terminate at Lor 1 Geylang. If not enough space, extend 141 to Eunos - in this way 141 will help 21 A LOT.
64: Extend to Buona Vista. Introduce new service for Mei Ling St sector.
70M, 107M, 111, 162M: Maybe extend to Shenton Way via MBS? Can do Suntec in both directions81, 82: Best candidates for Bidadari.51, 61, 67: Not loop services but long enough to take some actions.Sorry for spamming, but I just realised that changes have been made to a lot of former long looping routes (124, 123, 103, 99, 76 etc), and hence I'm kind of expecting more.
What about 63 & 975? Do you consider them as round trips?
Also, what was the real reason for chopping 172 to CCK in 1999? Surely it couldn't just be BPLRT?
Originally posted by iveco:What about 63 & 975? Do you consider them as round trips?
Also, what was the real reason for chopping 172 to CCK in 1999? Surely it couldn't just be BPLRT?
63 they have a short rest right at Rumah Tinggi? 10 mins or so i think
We seem to be forget about svc 36,Buses dont rest at all.Best way to terminate at Bt Merah and introduce 36M from Siglap loop at Tomlinson at 20 mins frequency run by Bndep.36 can partial Arbp/Bndep.
For 62 becoming a long loop service like it is now, it is all thanks to the LTA cutting it to loop it at Sims Ave from New Bridge Rd Ter during the NEL Rationalization despite the fact that it does not really duplicate the NEL (Existing Services 2, 12, 33, 54, 61*, 63*, 124*, 147, 166*, 190, 197*, 851* & 961* also duplicate the NEL between Clarke Quay & Outram Park now so that stretch of duplication does not really count).
I'd rather it return to the CBD (need not be New Bridge Rd like it used to be), like the suggestion user iveco brought up to extend it to Marina South rather than just end at Lor 1 Geylang Ter.
Originally posted by SBS7557R:For 62 becoming a long loop service like it is now, it is all thanks to the LTA cutting it to loop it at Sims Ave from New Bridge Rd Ter during the NEL Rationalization despite the fact that it does not really duplicate the NEL (Existing Services 2, 12, 33, 54, 61*, 63*, 124*, 147, 166*, 190, 197*, 851* & 961* also duplicate the NEL between Clarke Quay & Outram Park now so that stretch of duplication does not really count).
I'd rather it return to the CBD (need not be New Bridge Rd like it used to be), like the suggestion user iveco brought up to extend it to Marina South rather than just end at Lor 1 Geylang Ter.
Hi mr SBS7557R, sbs 62 was extended from upper serangoon to Punggol bus interchange on 1 end and the other end was shortened from new bridge terminal to loop at lorong 1 geylang during the NEL rationalisation. They did that because the distance was too long after extending to Punggol. So they shortened the other end after finding where is the best looping point. In the end, that point is lorong 1 geylang which is on thr fringe of city. This also kills off Punggol link to city effectively. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr SBS7557R, sbs 62 was extended from upper serangoon to Punggol bus interchange on 1 end and the other end was shortened from new bridge terminal to loop at lorong 1 geylang during the NEL rationalisation. They did that because the distance was too long after extending to Punggol. So they shortened the other end after finding where is the best looping point. In the end, that point is lorong 1 geylang which is on thr fringe of city. This also kills off Punggol link to city effectively. Cheers. Thanks.
dupdup77... I beg to differ that Svc 62 was extended from Hougang South Bus Interchange (the current Kovan City) to Punggol Temp Interchange and not Upper Serangoon.... Pls change your statement...
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:15 should be amended to ply Still road to Marine Parade loop so that can use DDs. They should have done this change.
15 can't really be amended because it would eliminate a connection between PP and Telok Kurau. Extending 150 to PP is also not an option as it will not serve Marine Terrace. Yes, doing a red/white plate is doable but I think it would make traveling time for Telok Kurau residents a bit long, and I think LTA generally does not want to upset connections to nearby amenities. Quite frankly, the solution for Marine Terrace <> Eunos sector is simply to get 55 to loop around Marine Terrace. Then introduce a new service between Eunos - Still Rd - Marine Parade - Lengkong Tiga/Empat or Chai Chee.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr SBS7557R, sbs 62 was extended from upper serangoon to Punggol bus interchange on 1 end and the other end was shortened from new bridge terminal to loop at lorong 1 geylang during the NEL rationalisation. They did that because the distance was too long after extending to Punggol. So they shortened the other end after finding where is the best looping point. In the end, that point is lorong 1 geylang which is on thr fringe of city. This also kills off Punggol link to city effectively. Cheers. Thanks.
Hi Mr Dudup77, I don't quite get your logic. If the route was a bi-directional NBR-Punggol service, it would be much shorter than its current routing (longer overall but D1/D2 would be shorter). If route length was such an issue, why didn't LTA simply cut it to Lor 1 Geylang when the terminal still had space at that point in time. Having a long loop service versus two D1/D2 is always much better for reliability and fleet management.
53M should just merge with 113 and skip hougang st 11 and terminate at Serangoon interchange. Hougang Central - Serangoon Interchange.
113M can be introduced, frequency of 20-25mins to serve Kovan station - Upper paya lebar road (Loop) in order not to lose the link for Hougang st 11 residents. (only bus svc in that stretch). According to LTA, there is demand from hougang st 11 to kovan station. Therefore they are unable to make 113 skip this stretch and extend to serangoon int. According to PTC, public transport operators are required to put up bus arrival timings at the bus stop for bus services with intervals more than 20 minutes. So,113M can cover up.
Originally posted by SBS 9256 X:dupdup77... I beg to differ that Svc 62 was extended from Hougang South Bus Interchange (the current Kovan City) to Punggol Temp Interchange and not Upper Serangoon.... Pls change your statement...
Hi mr SBS9256X, yes you are right. It is Hougang south. Sorry for the error. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by SBS6465E:Hi Mr Dudup77, I don't quite get your logic. If the route was a bi-directional NBR-Punggol service, it would be much shorter than its current routing (longer overall but D1/D2 would be shorter). If route length was such an issue, why didn't LTA simply cut it to Lor 1 Geylang when the terminal still had space at that point in time. Having a long loop service versus two D1/D2 is always much better for reliability and fleet management.
Hi mr SBS6465E, it will be longer overall but D1/D2 will be shorter. I am also quietly waiting for the day that it will terminate at lorong 1 geylang terminal one day. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr SBS6465E, it will be longer overall but D1/D2 will be shorter. I am also quietly waiting for the day that it will terminate at lorong 1 geylang terminal one day. Cheers. Thanks.
If you think that the route of Service 62 will become too long if it continues to operate to New Bridge Rd Ter after its route extension to Punggol Temp Int, why are current Services 2 and 12 allowed to continue with their existing routes, which are similar in length to (or even longer than) Service 62 if it operated from Punggol Temp Int to New Bridge Rd Ter? (Just because 2/12 do not serve the northeast but 62 does)
Originally posted by SBS7557R:If you think that the route of Service 62 will become too long if it continues to operate to New Bridge Rd Ter after its route extension to Punggol Temp Int, why are current Services 2 and 12 allowed to continue with their existing routes, which are similar in length to (or even longer than) Service 62 if it operated from Punggol Temp Int to New Bridge Rd Ter? (Just because 2/12 do not serve the northeast but 62 does)
It nearly duplicate Svc 80 from Upp Paya Lebar to Sth Bridge Rd.
Originally posted by SBS7557R:If you think that the route of Service 62 will become too long if it continues to operate to New Bridge Rd Ter after its route extension to Punggol Temp Int, why are current Services 2 and 12 allowed to continue with their existing routes, which are similar in length to (or even longer than) Service 62 if it operated from Punggol Temp Int to New Bridge Rd Ter? (Just because 2/12 do not serve the northeast but 62 does)
Hi mr SBS7557R, sbs 2 was also shortened from buona vista terminal to new bridge road terminal as it duplicates sbs 147/196/198 from Bukit merah to commonwealth Ave corridor and it was also deemed far too long. Cheers. Thanks.
12 used to go to BNV too. So did 103.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr SBS7557R, sbs 2 was also shortened from buona vista terminal to new bridge road terminal as it duplicates sbs 147/196/198 from Bukit merah to commonwealth Ave corridor and it was also deemed far too long. Cheers. Thanks.
It's funny how you bring up 198 when it isn't exactly even unique along that stretch of Queensway/Jln Bt Merah it was amended to serve when it was shortened to Bukit Merah (64 replaced its deleted sectors so no qualms on the deleted sectors).
There's already 123/153 along that stretch of Queensway/Jln Bt Merah from Bt Merah Int, while 147/196 (like you said) already provided the necessary connections between Queensway/Jln Bt Merah and Commonwealth MRT before 198 was amended to ply that stretch of Queensway/Jln Bt Merah. However, I understand that there isn't exactly an ideal way to cutback 198 from the east and Bt Merah Int seemed the most ideal already.
Another example of significant route duplication will be 26, where its main source of passenger demand comes from the sectors between Kallang MRT and Toa Payoh (via Kallang Bahru). So, shouldn't it be cut to Lor 1 Geylang Ter as well since the Bedok - Kallang MRT stretch is already served by 2 and 67? Why was it retained?
As mentioned by many before, just because a service duplicates other services or the MRT/LRT doesn't mean it should be taken away. The passenger demand should still be the testifying factor as to whether a service should be removed.
As to whether there was substantial passenger demand along 62's old route before the cut and whether it worsened post-NEL, we will leave it to the regular commuters of 62's old route to decide (if there's any here to verify, it'll be even better). If 62's demand along its old route wasn't very heavy because it duplicated 80 along many of its sectors and its demand dropped even further when the NEL opened, I will certainly stand by your verdict that it is duplicating and the cut to loop (or terrminate as per your suggestion) at Lor 1 Geylang was worthwhile.
Originally posted by SBS7557R:It's funny how you bring up 198 when it isn't exactly even unique along that stretch of Queensway/Jln Bt Merah it was amended to serve when it was shortened to Bukit Merah (64 replaced its deleted sectors so no qualms on the deleted sectors).
There's already 123/153 along that stretch of Queensway/Jln Bt Merah from Bt Merah Int, while 147/196 (like you said) already provided the necessary connections between Queensway/Jln Bt Merah and Commonwealth MRT before 198 was amended to ply that stretch of Queensway/Jln Bt Merah. However, I understand that there isn't exactly an ideal way to cutback 198 from the east and Bt Merah Int seemed the most ideal already.
Another example of significant route duplication will be 26, where its main source of passenger demand comes from the sectors between Kallang MRT and Toa Payoh (via Kallang Bahru). So, shouldn't it be cut to Lor 1 Geylang Ter as well since the Bedok - Kallang MRT stretch is already served by 2 and 67? Why was it retained?
As mentioned by many before, just because a service duplicates other services or the MRT/LRT doesn't mean it should be taken away. The passenger demand should still be the testifying factor as to whether a service should be removed.
As to whether there was substantial passenger demand along 62's old route before the cut and whether it worsened post-NEL, we will leave it to the regular commuters of 62's old route to decide (if there's any here to verify, it'll be even better). If 62's demand along its old route wasn't very heavy because it duplicated 80 along many of its sectors and its demand dropped even further when the NEL opened, I will certainly stand by your verdict that it is duplicating and the cut to loop (or terrminate as per your suggestion) at Lor 1 Geylang was worthwhile.
I think for 2's case, is to modernise and housekeep the route meant for their future generations like my generation, think 'cannot be done' due to YourStudent era.
Some routes are always kept with significant demand through, or transferred to other replicative services.
For 62, I doubt it is because no way can escape to Bugis, Clarke Quay & Chinatown. All are connected by the DTL and NEL, all are spoonfeeded. Maybe should be moved over to terminate at Downtown MRT Station, to provide 'little' connectivity.
The NEL-duplicative routes are not needed to just go back to the old terminus like the former Path Light saying. what we want is to go to what is only needed: Little India, Tampines, or Punggol Northshore.
old 3 was cancelled due to the MRT line (Bedok - Jurong East) and may be extended to Tampines.
147 took over the service 2 at first, but other than that service 147 has always not been removed in 2003. Service 81, 82, 85, 97, 103, 106, 111, 501, 502, 511 and 512 - all these are withdrawn or rerouted away because either there is a drop in demand due to NEL opening, the contracts were about to expire until 1 January 2005 and so they have to make changes or it could be a long waiting time.
Some service really need each other to tank the loadings along the way,Imagine one road one bus service and later you all will complain again..Thank God there is another parallel bus service to compliment other service,There is an advantage over it.
Originally posted by carbikebus:Some service really need each other to tank the loadings along the way,Imagine one road one bus service and later you all will complain again..Thank God there is another parallel bus service to compliment other service,There is an advantage over it.
Or we could easily add buses to that service...? Why is route duplication always the solution? The paradox of choice?
Originally posted by TPS Timothy Mok:I think for 2's case, is to modernise and housekeep the route meant for their future generations like my generation, think 'cannot be done' due to YourStudent era.
Some routes are always kept with significant demand through, or transferred to other replicative services.
For 62, I doubt it is because no way can escape to Bugis, Clarke Quay & Chinatown. All are connected by the DTL and NEL, all are spoonfeeded. Maybe should be moved over to terminate at Downtown MRT Station, to provide 'little' connectivity.
The NEL-duplicative routes are not needed to just go back to the old terminus like the former Path Light saying. what we want is to go to what is only needed: Little India, Tampines, or Punggol Northshore.
old 3 was cancelled due to the MRT line (Bedok - Jurong East) and may be extended to Tampines.
147 took over the service 2 at first, but other than that service 147 has always not been removed in 2003. Service 81, 82, 85, 97, 103, 106, 111, 501, 502, 511 and 512 - all these are withdrawn or rerouted away because either there is a drop in demand due to NEL opening, the contracts were about to expire until 1 January 2005 and so they have to make changes or it could be a long waiting time.
Agreed. Tidying up of services, retaining heavily-demanded sectors and skipping the rest, or reducing stops along those stretches.
Or we could always inplement the Orchard Road model to all major roads in Singapore!