Bus routes no matter their distance provide an alternative to subway. Some run parrallel, some dun.
All networks in the world always provide an alternative to subway as there r commuters who prefer bus over rail no matter the time used.
Its suicidal to solely depend on rail solely as train breakdowns in SG has shown tt w/o a parallel svc, commuters are "stuck" in any event of breakdown.
London, Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo has parrallel bus services to subway.
Former ministers Lim H H suggested doing away w long distance bus routes and splitting up a long route into two drew lotsa noise, shows a total disconnect of planners with reality.
Parallel services have been progressively introduced, CDS is an example, SBST 128 was supposed to be withdrawn years back but is still running.
Long distance bus routes are here to stay till a change in policy.(unlikely thogh due to political reason(s) n also policy to shift more pple to public transport)
Rationalisation, shortening of routes in any district in Singapore is a very sensitive matter, LTA will bear e wrath of the Grassroots in the district unless there is a v compelling reason to chop up any service.
Originally posted by SBS6465E:68 I suspect will be a Pasir Ris - Tamp service that will serve the burgeoning HDB estate in Tamp North.
genius...
Originally posted by Acx1688:Bus routes no matter their distance provide an alternative to subway. Some run parrallel, some dun.
All networks in the world always provide an alternative to subway as there r commuters who prefer bus over rail no matter the time used.
Its suicidal to solely depend on rail solely as train breakdowns in SG has shown tt w/o a parallel svc, commuters are "stuck" in any event of breakdown.
London, Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo has parrallel bus services to subway.
Former ministers Lim H H suggested doing away w long distance bus routes and splitting up a long route into two drew lotsa noise, shows a total disconnect of planners with reality.
Parallel services have been progressively introduced, CDS is an example, SBST 128 was supposed to be withdrawn years back but is still running.
Long distance bus routes are here to stay till a change in policy.(unlikely thogh due to political reason(s) n also policy to shift more pple to public transport)
Rationalisation, shortening of routes in any district in Singapore is a very sensitive matter, LTA will bear e wrath of the Grassroots in the district unless there is a v compelling reason to chop up any service.
DEL
Originally posted by SBS6465E:I see that nuance goes to die on this forum.
CDS etc is all ok. Long bus routes that are not winding or serve niche markets with poor/inconvenient MRT coverage like TPE or CCK/Boon Lay just to name a few, are all ok.
I have said that long and winding routes should be re-looked at as our rail network becomes more mature. Nobody takes them from end-to-end. After all, once TEL and CCL6 comes online, 10, 12, 14, 16, 30, 32, 36, 48, 196, 197 will all heavily duplicate the Marine Parade/Mountbatten - City/Pasir Panjang sector. These are all long routes that we all know have reliability issues etc. We cannot amend all of them, but we should at least look at how we can consolidate some of these services and re-deploy the fleet so that the area can adapt to the MRT by having more feeders for example.
Parallel MRT services are ok but when you try to replicate the same scale and capacity of the MRT as is the case with the buses in BPJ/BTM, it is a complete waste of resources. Yes, breakdowns do occur. So you're going to keep all the current services in BTM just for those 5/365 days a year when a major breakdown occurs?
Also, as I have said MANY times. Marine Parade has too many long-distance services not enough short-distance services that connect nearby estates. Long-distance services have crowded out the area. That is why LTA is reluctant to introduce new services due to duplication along Marine Parade Rd. Something needs to be done.
And I can dispute your London and Tokyo examples. While routes parallel the Tube/Subway, routes are much shorter and cleaner. Not so messy like the ones we have here.
I'm sure Acx bro meant the express long svcs that parallel the rail...
It is a common consensus that we want no more legendary bus svcs...
We mean those like 23, TPE corridor, BKE corridor and all the Express svcs...
Originally posted by SMB128B:I'm sure Acx bro meant the express long svcs that parallel the rail...
It is a common consensus that we want no more legendary bus svcs...
We mean those like 23, TPE corridor, BKE corridor and all the Express svcs...
My apologies then.
Expressway services can remain as supplementary to our MRT network.
I do stand by my opinion that we should be amending some long distance routes in the East, to boast reliability and intro new svc for more connectivity.
Cheers
Originally posted by SBS6465E:I'm not here to advocate slaying all long-distance routes. We must strike the correct balance to ensure that we optimise our bus and rail resources. Don't forget, buses while cheaper to acquire in the short-run, have lower capacity and in the long-run are more labor-intensive and pollutive. So, we need the MRT for high capacity corridors. Buses should then augment our MRT network by covering last-mile sectors and filling in inter-town gaps that cannot be served by our MRT or that would be inconvenient to use the MRT. We cannot maintain a bus network parallel and of equivalent scale to the MRT just for the sake of those few unlucky days when breakdowns occur. That is a huge waste of resources.
Services like 25 & 854 are direct high-frequency services that tightly duplicate each other to form an almost MRT-like service between Bedok, Eunos, AMK & Yishun. Expressway services are all fine. I am against long and winding routes like many of the ones in the East where it is clear that demand is not constant throughout the route. This is a legacy in the East because it was where most of the population lived in the 50s, 60s & 70s. So many routes are long and winding because there was no MRT, and it was an unscrupolous way for all these small-time bus companies to maximise profits by packing as many people onto the bus before it would reach town. But we are living in a different era and we still have many of the remnants of this bus network in the East. So it is just ridiculous when Marine Parade has all of these connections to AMK, YCK, TPY, Bishan, Bukit Merah, when there is no or limited access to nearby estates like Chai Chee, Sims Place, Geylang East Central, Kembangan, Chai Chee, etc.
That is why LTA is slowly trying to rationalise this by eliminating duplicating long-distance services in order to free up space to introduce inter-town routes. With the TEL less than a decade away, it is high time LTA starts to think about this.
You mentioned the MRT rationalisation excercise in the 90s. It was a mistake, period. We have ended up with routes that are too long. Who is going to take 14 from Bedok Road to Bukit Merah? Who is going to take 51 from Hougang Central to Queenstown? These are routes that amalgamate many demand sectors and thus cannot serve each sector properly bacause we all know that longer routes suffer from reliability issues. That's why all BSEP routes have been under 22km.
Then what is your say on LTA's sheer stubbornness in not introducing any more new express svcs along MRT-incapable stretches?
Originally posted by SMB128B:Then what is your say on LTA's sheer stubbornness in not introducing any more new express svcs along MRT-incapable stretches?
I feel that the current fare system for Express/Fast Forward services also needs to be improved before any more Express/Fast Forward services are implemented.
Currently, Express/Fast Forward services do not accept concession passes and adult/senior citizen monthly travel passes. For instance, an adult commuter using a monthly travel pass may not see the motivation to switch from the MRT or trunk services to an Express/Fast Forward service because one mode accepts monthly travel passes (i.e. MRT/trunk services) while the other mode does not (i.e. Express/Fast Forward services). Thus, in order to switch to these services, commuters using monthly travel passes will have to top up extra amounts on top of the prices they are already paying for their monthly travel passes just to use these services, which is not a very viable way of managing monthly transport expenditures.
Hence, Express/Fast Forward services are currently only beneficial to particular groups of commuters (i.e. students, senior citizens and adults who opt to pay their regular fares and not use concession/monthly travel passes). This could be one reason that impedes the introduction of more of such services or the conversion of existing peak hour Express/Fast Forward services to full day operations.
Therefore, the LTA should also extend the usage of concession/monthly travel passes to Express/Fast Forward services. This will ensure that commuters who use these passes will not need to increase their monthly transport expenses just to use these services. This could also help in increasing the demands for these services and thereafter see a much greater need to introduce more of these services or convert some existing services to full day services.
Originally posted by SBS6465E:I'm not here to advocate slaying all long-distance routes. We must strike the correct balance to ensure that we optimise our bus and rail resources. Don't forget, buses while cheaper to acquire in the short-run, have lower capacity and in the long-run are more labor-intensive and pollutive. So, we need the MRT for high capacity corridors. Buses should then augment our MRT network by covering last-mile sectors and filling in inter-town gaps that cannot be served by our MRT or that would be inconvenient to use the MRT. We cannot maintain a bus network parallel and of equivalent scale to the MRT just for the sake of those few unlucky days when breakdowns occur. That is a huge waste of resources.
Services like 25 & 854 are direct high-frequency services that tightly duplicate each other to form an almost MRT-like service between Bedok, Eunos, AMK & Yishun. Expressway services are all fine. I am against long and winding routes like many of the ones in the East where it is clear that demand is not constant throughout the route. This is a legacy in the East because it was where most of the population lived in the 50s, 60s & 70s. So many routes are long and winding because there was no MRT, and it was an unscrupolous way for all these small-time bus companies to maximise profits by packing as many people onto the bus before it would reach town. But we are living in a different era and we still have many of the remnants of this bus network in the East. So it is just ridiculous when Marine Parade has all of these connections to AMK, YCK, TPY, Bishan, Bukit Merah, when there is no or limited access to nearby estates like Chai Chee, Sims Place, Geylang East Central, Kembangan, Chai Chee, etc.
That is why LTA is slowly trying to rationalise this by eliminating duplicating long-distance services in order to free up space to introduce inter-town routes. With the TEL less than a decade away, it is high time LTA starts to think about this.
You mentioned the MRT rationalisation excercise in the 90s. It was a mistake, period. We have ended up with routes that are too long. Who is going to take 14 from Bedok Road to Bukit Merah? Who is going to take 51 from Hougang Central to Queenstown? These are routes that amalgamate many demand sectors and thus cannot serve each sector properly bacause we all know that longer routes suffer from reliability issues. That's why all BSEP routes have been under 22km.
Agreed that the mergers of 14/92 and 51/192 are not the best amendments to come out of the MRT rationalization of the 1980s and that no one will take 14/51 from their starting points to their end points. The rail network certainly offers much faster solutions, as well as a combination of other trunk buses such as 7 (from Bedok to Clementi) or 74/52 (from Hougang Central to Jurong East).
Another thing I observe of most long-distance services that exist today are that they run from 1 residential town in the North/Central/East, pass through the CBD to another residential town in the West, which could be the most significant reason why they are even long distance in the first place. Therefore, a faster connection between residential estates that are far apart can definitely be better served by the MRT or a trunk/Express service that don't pass through the CBD. 74 is a classic example, providing a viable connection from Central to West (Ang Mo Kio to Clementi) using Lornie/Adam Rds to provide faster links than the MRT, had it not been pulled away from Clementi to Buona Vista in the 1990s.
On the other hand, 81 (before NEL rationalization) and 171 are exceptions, detouring around the Northeast (for 81) from the East and Northwest (for 171) from the North before entering the CBD. Therefore, the shortening of 81 during NEL rationalization and suggestions that 171 should be shortened to terminate/loop in the Northwest are more or less justifiable.
It's good to see that some CBD services in history had indeed been pulled out of CBD to cut down on their long distances. 1 example is 165, which was pulled out of CBD to use Lornie/Adam Rds during the 1974 rationalization. However, for existing long-distance services, splitting them up would probably be a better solution, but I won't go on further given the many suggestions over here and until we can think of better solutions to reorganize these long-haul services.
With regards to Marine Parade not having connections to other nearby residential estates such as Chai Chee, Sims Place, Geylang East Central and Kembangan, I will comment on each individually:
- Chai Chee: 16, 196, 197, with 16 being a faster option for residential blocks along the sectors of Marine Parade Rd west of Siglap Rd. Though they do not directly connect to Chai Chee Estate, the estate itself is only a short walk away from Bedok Int. Moreover, I think that Marine Parade residents will prefer going to Bedok Town Centre than Chai Chee Estate, which has more amenities and facilities that the residents would require.
- Sims Place: The upcoming 134 will do that so I will reserve my comments.
- Geylang East Central: 155, though not directly with only 1 stop along Victoria Sch. Agreed that this connection could be beefed up, and the upcoming 134 will also do just that so I will once again reserve my comments.
- Kembangan: I will follow Acx1688's sentiments on this one that they previously approved for the operation of such a connection but yet didn't implement it.
SMB128, Thank you for reading my mind very correctly
For Hong Kong's case, buses that use e expressway to get from residential to urban kowloon, 269B, 16 , etc at Trunk fares.
5xx series is expensive. 23, 52, 190, 966, 985 eg use expressways but at trunk fares. It should be this way so ridership can increase for 506, 518(poor ridership at certain times morning, 518 esp).
10, 12, 14, 16, 30, 32, 36, 48, 196, 197 after adjustments n BSEP injection reduced punctuality issues. Capacity wise would be 36,48 during peak. I have been looking at M Parade/Katong area bus services for years.
Other than tt, traffic holds up adjust every bus service in the world...
Slicing the above mentioned services is UNLIKELY, if tts e case 70, 80 would be gone after CCL open.
ffw services (exception of 74e/151e) is to cater to the working population(10e,14e,30e, 97e,196e, 854e) while e oth 2 r to rip off students... SBST can just introduce 74S as a special departure for students. HK, UK does it for schools.
UK wise, London to be exact has routes that are close to underground...
73( Victoria > Stoke Newington)
10( King's Cross > Hammersmith) etc
On the efficient deployment of buses, LTA has stubbornly stuck to the 10 min rule no matter if the service has commuters or not, that is killing bus operations, pollution and staffing matters.
Secondly, there are too many buses laying over/parking at BT/Int during peak hours. Jump bus shld be practiced. Look at SG bus interchanges/ters during peak ...
Bus Lanes should be full and not truncated for cars to queue up to turn in. If need be, a small section to be opened up for vehicle to turn in to building, service road, etc.
Bus route scheduling should be readjusted per service according to traffic for efficient fleet deployment
sv55 has a 120min round trip route which is a luxury while 14, 196 has an approx 100min route which is punishing with the very heavy traffic in city centre.
Deployment of buses, 966 is overdeployed. Every weekday one can see 966 arriving every 5/6 mins on average(LTA's pride n boasting trump card) provided there is no jam on the expressways BUT downside is 3rd, 4th , 5th bus en route is less than half full. SWT(as discussed in other threads while back) would be productive. In addition, 15, 966 doing 10min layover at Marine Parade would do wonders
Originally posted by SBS7557R:I feel that the current fare system for Express/Fast Forward services also needs to be improved before any more Express/Fast Forward services are implemented.
Currently, Express/Fast Forward services do not accept concession passes and adult/senior citizen monthly travel passes. For instance, an adult commuter using a monthly travel pass may not see the motivation to switch from the MRT or trunk services to an Express/Fast Forward service because one mode accepts monthly travel passes (i.e. MRT/trunk services) while the other mode does not (i.e. Express/Fast Forward services). Thus, in order to switch to these services, commuters using monthly travel passes will have to top up extra amounts on top of the prices they are already paying for their monthly travel passes just to use these services, which is not a very viable way of managing monthly transport expenditures.
Hence, Express/Fast Forward services are currently only beneficial to particular groups of commuters (i.e. students, senior citizens and adults who opt to pay their regular fares and not use concession/monthly travel passes). This could be one reason that impedes the introduction of more of such services or the conversion of existing peak hour Express/Fast Forward services to full day operations.
Therefore, the LTA should also extend the usage of concession/monthly travel passes to Express/Fast Forward services. This will ensure that commuters who use these passes will not need to increase their monthly transport expenses just to use these services. This could also help in increasing the demands for these services and thereafter see a much greater need to introduce more of these services or convert some existing services to full day services.
Express do accept concession... My relative used to study in SOTA and he takes 518 with concession fares...
But I agree that LTA needs to review Express svcs fees structure, which IMO is overly rigid... No monthly passes, no off-peak discounts... Worse still are the Chinatown Directs... Don't even get me started...
I guarantee last bus of CT18 will definitely not be 4pm if they dont rip ppl off liddat...
Originally posted by Acx1688:SMB128, Thank you for reading my mind very correctly
For Hong Kong's case, buses that use e expressway to get from residential to urban kowloon, 269B, 16 , etc at Trunk fares.
5xx series is expensive. 23, 52, 190, 966, 985 eg use expressways but at trunk fares. It should be this way so ridership can increase for 506, 518(poor ridership at certain times morning, 518 esp).
10, 12, 14, 16, 30, 32, 36, 48, 196, 197 after adjustments n BSEP injection reduced punctuality issues. Capacity wise would be 36,48 during peak. I have been looking at M Parade/Katong area bus services for years.
Other than tt, traffic holds up adjust every bus service in the world...
Slicing the above mentioned services is UNLIKELY, if tts e case 70, 80 would be gone after CCL open.
ffw services (exception of 74e/151e) is to cater to the working population(10e,14e,30e, 97e,196e, 854e) while e oth 2 r to rip off students... SBST can just introduce 74S as a special departure for students. HK, UK does it for schools.
UK wise, London to be exact has routes that are close to underground...
73( Victoria > Stoke Newington)
10( King's Cross > Hammersmith) etc
Ofc I do, I lived there for over a decade, in a town almost full of express svcs... I know the benefits of direct, rapid bus connections...
I fully agree that the fares should be considered lowered for higher ridership... 506 definitely has room to improve... Should they lower the fares and perhaps pump in a little more buses to boost freq, the increase in ridership will pay for it...
506 does serve numerous connections that would have been difficult to achieve via rail, so it has a lot of potential...
But it's all up to our dear LTA to decide if they have the balls to do it... Which yet again I will doubt so...
Originally posted by SMB128B:Express do accept concession... My relative used to study in SOTA and he takes 518 with concession fares...
But I agree that LTA needs to review Express svcs fees structure, which IMO is overly rigid... No monthly passes, no off-peak discounts... Worse still are the Chinatown Directs... Don't even get me started...
I guarantee last bus of CT18 will definitely not be 4pm if they dont rip ppl off liddat...
'Concession' in his case does not refer to those student or senior citizen fares, but rather monthly concession passes that allow passengers to enjoy unlimited bus rides.
Originally posted by SMB128B:Then what is your say on LTA's sheer stubbornness in not introducing any more new express svcs along MRT-incapable stretches?
Could you name these sectors. Because other than KJE/SLE sectors (between CCK & Boon Lay/Joo Koon or AMK & BPJ), I cannot see any areas that could potentially have expressway services. PIE, CTE & AYE can have quite heavy traffic during peak hours so I using the train will still be much quicker. Direct services between Punggol & CCK as some have called for I don't think will justify demand. Highway services can be very fleet-intensive, so ensuring sufficient loading to defray the high cost of operating such services must be there. Some have been calling for a direct TPY-Paya Lebar service via PIE. Can be done but again, traffic. 28 usually flies through Bartley. 26 also quite quick. Toa Payoh West residents can use Caldecott MRT. I agree though that Toa Payoh East/Potong Pasir - Paya Lebar is quite out of the way.
Originally posted by Acx1688:SMB128, Thank you for reading my mind very correctly
For Hong Kong's case, buses that use e expressway to get from residential to urban kowloon, 269B, 16 , etc at Trunk fares.
5xx series is expensive. 23, 52, 190, 966, 985 eg use expressways but at trunk fares. It should be this way so ridership can increase for 506, 518(poor ridership at certain times morning, 518 esp).
10, 12, 14, 16, 30, 32, 36, 48, 196, 197 after adjustments n BSEP injection reduced punctuality issues. Capacity wise would be 36,48 during peak. I have been looking at M Parade/Katong area bus services for years.
Other than tt, traffic holds up adjust every bus service in the world...
Slicing the above mentioned services is UNLIKELY, if tts e case 70, 80 would be gone after CCL open.
ffw services (exception of 74e/151e) is to cater to the working population(10e,14e,30e, 97e,196e, 854e) while e oth 2 r to rip off students... SBST can just introduce 74S as a special departure for students. HK, UK does it for schools.
UK wise, London to be exact has routes that are close to underground...
73( Victoria > Stoke Newington)
10( King's Cross > Hammersmith) etc
Not all have received BSEP adds. You would have much better results if you simply sliced these services in half. After all, there is very uneven loading because they pass through the CBP. For instance during morning peak hours, on one side you have city-bound commuters, and then buses run empty once leaving the city. Sadly there is not enough space in the CBD. Could be achieved by building underground ITHs in Marina Bay & Orchard Boulevard then selling air-rights on top. There is land in these areas for new high-rise developments.
Originally posted by Acx1688:On the efficient deployment of buses, LTA has stubbornly stuck to the 10 min rule no matter if the service has commuters or not, that is killing bus operations, pollution and staffing matters.
Secondly, there are too many buses laying over/parking at BT/Int during peak hours. Jump bus shld be practiced. Look at SG bus interchanges/ters during peak ...
Bus Lanes should be full and not truncated for cars to queue up to turn in. If need be, a small section to be opened up for vehicle to turn in to building, service road, etc.
Bus route scheduling should be readjusted per service according to traffic for efficient fleet deployment
sv55 has a 120min round trip route which is a luxury while 14, 196 has an approx 100min route which is punishing with the very heavy traffic in city centre.
Deployment of buses, 966 is overdeployed. Every weekday one can see 966 arriving every 5/6 mins on average(LTA's pride n boasting trump card) provided there is no jam on the expressways BUT downside is 3rd, 4th , 5th bus en route is less than half full. SWT(as discussed in other threads while back) would be productive. In addition, 15, 966 doing 10min layover at Marine Parade would do wonders
They could possibly build a terminal at the slip road to Brooke Road by widening the street. It would be side parking like Sims Pl.
As for Siglap Rd, you could also have side-parking if you eliminated the lots for heavy vehicles at Siglap Link. Side parking again, but sufficient for 55 & 155. 135 can be extended to Eunos.
Originally posted by SBS6465E:Could you name these sectors. Because other than KJE/SLE sectors (between CCK & Boon Lay/Joo Koon or AMK & BPJ), I cannot see any areas that could potentially have expressway services. PIE, CTE & AYE can have quite heavy traffic during peak hours so I using the train will still be much quicker. Direct services between Punggol & CCK as some have called for I don't think will justify demand. Highway services can be very fleet-intensive, so ensuring sufficient loading to defray the high cost of operating such services must be there. Some have been calling for a direct TPY-Paya Lebar service via PIE. Can be done but again, traffic. 28 usually flies through Bartley. 26 also quite quick. Toa Payoh West residents can use Caldecott MRT. I agree though that Toa Payoh East/Potong Pasir - Paya Lebar is quite out of the way.
Oh boy you are so wrong.
Firstly, it is untrue congestion mecessarily means buses will lose to rail. In the first place, jams are caused due to the unattractivensss of PT, obv caused by little alternatives and total reliance on rail. Indeed, it is true buses will slow down, but you see, often these jams occur during peak hours. Trains often become sardine cans and the time taken to walk (transfer) and wait offsets the time you claimed you will save.
Punggol - CCK DEFINITELY will have demand. Pls la, you are connecting a satellite town with a future Meteopolis Of The 21st Century. Plus, it certainly wont be confined to these two towns. It could pass by Sengkang, BPJ etc. along the way.
I have suggested an Express 503 on the Route Suggestions thread. Dont tell me THAT doesnt have demand.
Regarding fleet size you rly need to check yourself before you wreck yourself. Not only does highway svcs not consume more buses, they use LESS. Reason is simple: when travelling time shortens fleet size proportionally decreases. 9 buses could sustain a 15-min headway for svcs like 161, 118. The same could not be said for long trunks like 51, 147. You can argue with me with svcs like 27, 966. These are the svcs u have mentioned: successful beyond initial capacity, hence the massive fleet adds. iirc 966 didnt start off with many buses too.
You are worried about sustainability. I tell you not to, look at the people now. Time is gold. Increasing requests for direct bus connections. Hence 117, 118. I hope there will be more to come.
Originally posted by SBS7557R:Another thing I observe of most long-distance services that exist today are that they run from 1 residential town in the North/Central/East, pass through the CBD to another residential town in the West, which could be the most significant reason why they are even long distance in the first place. Therefore, a faster connection between residential estates that are far apart can definitely be better served by the MRT or a trunk/Express service that don't pass through the CBD. 74 is a classic example, providing a viable connection from Central to West (Ang Mo Kio to Clementi) using Lornie/Adam Rds to provide faster links than the MRT, had it not been pulled away from Clementi to Buona Vista in the 1990s.
With regards to Marine Parade not having connections to other nearby residential estates such as Chai Chee, Sims Place, Geylang East Central and Kembangan, I will comment on each individually:
- Chai Chee: 16, 196, 197, with 16 being a faster option for residential blocks along the sectors of Marine Parade Rd west of Siglap Rd. Though they do not directly connect to Chai Chee Estate, the estate itself is only a short walk away from Bedok Int. Moreover, I think that Marine Parade residents will prefer going to Bedok Town Centre than Chai Chee Estate, which has more amenities and facilities that the residents would require.
- Sims Place: The upcoming 134 will do that so I will reserve my comments.
- Geylang East Central: 155, though not directly with only 1 stop along Victoria Sch. Agreed that this connection could be beefed up, and the upcoming 134 will also do just that so I will once again reserve my comments.
- Kembangan: I will follow Acx1688's sentiments on this one that they previously approved for the operation of such a connection but yet didn't implement it.
Yes, these East/Northeast to West services are prone to many reliability issues due to punishing traffic in the city centre and very uneven loading.
It's not so much Marine Parade residents using amenities in Chai Chee/Kembangan but the other way round. Marine Parade is home to very reputable schools namely VS, VJC, KC (Pri & Sec), St. Patrick's, Ngee Ann Pri & Tao Nan. You have other amenities also like Mendaki, St. Andrew's Autism Ctr, superb facilities at Marine Parade CC, access to East Coast Park via multiple underpasses and shopping/offices at Parkway Parade. Also, many new developments at Katong are coming up.
In the future, with TEL, serving Marine Parade will allow for quick access to the Marina South area once developed, and may also relieve loading on EWL by giving residents an alternative.
The parts closer to Bedok ITH and New Upp Changi are alright. The former can walk to Bedok Int and the latter can utilise 32 & 40, though this will only get you to limited points west of Siglap Rd as one has to walk from East Coast Rd. Parts that are deep inside like Chai Chee St are very poorly served. Taking 222 up to Bedok Int and then switiching is a very round-about way.
Same with Kembangan. Taking 42 to Flamingo Valley and then 40 down is just retarded. For 42, you have the loop in and out of Fidelio St plus 40 does not serve Marine Parade Rd directly. 42's frequency is now ok but 40 is not fantastic. Super time consuming and inconvenient.
Originally posted by SBS6465E:Yes, these East/Northeast to West services are prone to many reliability issues due to punishing traffic in the city centre and very uneven loading.
It's not so much Marine Parade residents using amenities in Chai Chee/Kembangan but the other way round. Marine Parade is home to very reputable schools namely VS, VJC, KC (Pri & Sec), St. Patrick's, Ngee Ann Pri & Tao Nan. You have other amenities also like Mendaki, St. Andrew's Autism Ctr, superb facilities at Marine Parade CC, access to East Coast Park via multiple underpasses and shopping/offices at Parkway Parade. Also, many new developments at Katong are coming up.
In the future, with TEL, serving Marine Parade will allow for quick access to the Marina South area once developed, and may also relieve loading on EWL by giving residents an alternative.
The parts closer to Bedok ITH and New Upp Changi are alright. The former can walk to Bedok Int and the latter can utilise 32 & 40, though this will only get you to limited points west of Siglap Rd as one has to walk from East Coast Rd. Parts that are deep inside like Chai Chee St are very poorly served. Taking 222 up to Bedok Int and then switiching is a very round-about way.
Same with Kembangan. Taking 42 to Flamingo Valley and then 40 down is just retarded. For 42, you have the loop in and out of Fidelio St plus 40 does not serve Marine Parade Rd directly. 42's frequency is now ok but 40 is not fantastic. Super time consuming and inconvenient.
Chai Chee Estate is served with 2 feeders. 222 frequency has been beefed up with 4 additional buses + PPSS. There is no need for 229 which is winding for Bedok South residents to Bedok ITH.
What Chai Chee needs is a trunk service and not two feeders. Hence, I proposed that 26 be extended to CBP or UEC (latter if 45 is diverted to CBP). 26 this way would connect Chai Chee to Paya Lebar (CCL), Eunos/Kembangan and Tanah Merah.
Modifying sv 26 route will not inconvenience people and will also help revive its loading (today it is just treated as back up service with meagre 14 SDs).
Originally posted by SMB128B:Oh boy you are so wrong.
Firstly, it is untrue congestion mecessarily means buses will lose to rail. In the first place, jams are caused due to the unattractivensss of PT, obv caused by little alternatives and total reliance on rail. Indeed, it is true buses will slow down, but you see, often these jams occur during peak hours. Trains often become sardine cans and the time taken to walk (transfer) and wait offsets the time you claimed you will save.
Punggol - CCK DEFINITELY will have demand. Pls la, you are connecting a satellite town with a future Meteopolis Of The 21st Century. Plus, it certainly wont be confined to these two towns. It could pass by Sengkang, BPJ etc. along the way.
I have suggested an Express 503 on the Route Suggestions thread. Dont tell me THAT doesnt have demand.
Regarding fleet size you rly need to check yourself before you wreck yourself. Not only does highway svcs not consume more buses, they use LESS. Reason is simple: when travelling time shortens fleet size proportionally decreases. 9 buses could sustain a 15-min headway for svcs like 161, 118. The same could not be said for long trunks like 51, 147. You can argue with me with svcs like 27, 966. These are the svcs u have mentioned: successful beyond initial capacity, hence the massive fleet adds. iirc 966 didnt start off with many buses too.
You are worried about sustainability. I tell you not to, look at the people now. Time is gold. Increasing requests for direct bus connections. Hence 117, 118. I hope there will be more to come.
Firstly, I am not LTA. I appreciate your passion though.
Cause of jams are debatable. Sometimes they are caused by the influx of heavy vehicles like on the AYE. However, I agree that public transport is still not an attractive means for some people who commute very long distances. Unfortunately, our planners did not have the foresight for express MRT services like in NYC or Tokyo. CRL will change things. Some still drive because our trains are very crowded. Again, poor planning on LTA's part. But in the East & North, DTL & TEL will hopefully relieve the crowding on EWL/NSL. CDS is a good response.
Sometimes it is just down to status consciousness among Singaporeans.
Have you traveled on AYE/PIE or CTE during peak hours? I used to commute daily between Kent Ridge and the East. Hands down train was fastest. So what if it's jam free off-peak. Our trains are emptier off-peak as well.
161 & 118 can work because TPE is still quite jam free. Please check fleet deployments for other services and reliability as well. 506 can be really bad.
Right now Punggol is still largely residential. URA's masterplan sets a 10-15 year timeline and with the state of the economy it may slow down. By then you will have CRL. If not an express service of some sort could be implemented once SIT is built. CCK will have Jurong Lake District first anyway. This can be reached by a combination of EWL & NEL. Right now, you are linking 2 satelite estates that are very far apart where amenities are largely duplicated in both regions.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Chai Chee Estate is served with 2 feeders. 222 frequency has been beefed up with 4 additional buses + PPSS. There is no need for 229 which is winding for Bedok South residents to Bedok ITH.
What Chai Chee needs is a trunk service and not two feeders. Hence, I proposed that 26 be extended to CBP or UEC (latter if 45 is diverted to CBP). 26 this way would connect Chai Chee to Paya Lebar (CCL), Eunos/Kembangan and Tanah Merah.
Modifying sv 26 route will not inconvenience people and will also help revive its loading (today it is just treated as back up service with meagre 14 SDs).
Supported. Quite a direct route also, so even though route becomes more lengthy reliability should still be ok.
for frankelers here. i post loading of 32 on frankel in loading thread. see for yourself.
I note that every Tampines Secondary School student inclusive of Gwendolyn and Angeline, do support their manifesto that the current trend of bus services is to only launch short and medium-haul services, and not long-haul services that have their worst-off reliability problems. We are now not rationalising bus services.
sv40 freq during peak is 10mins, have seen bunching at East Coast Rd(twds Bedok) morning peak weekdays.
More than enough scheduled fleet for 40.
Siglap Rd rdside terminal can have space for 4/5 bus serbices if using one in, one out strategy, need not take up too much space.
Existing looping service can be extended
111 can go to Punggol via ECP, Still Rd South, Jln Eunos, KPE, Sengkang East(follow 62 route to Punggol). STOPPING at major stops, ie Still Rd South(Grand Hotel), Eunos Station, Ubi Housing Estate bus stop, Kaki Bukit Auto Ctr, ...
Plenty of links using expressway:
1.Harbourfront/NBR Ter, Queensway, Adam PIE, BKE, Dairy Farm, Upp Bukit Timah, Brickland Rd, CCK Ter
2. Mentioned earlier, SKG/HG via Toa Payoh, PIE, BKE to CCK
3. Yishun, Ave 1, SLE, CTE, PIE, Adam, Queensway, NUH
4. Expo, PIE, BKE, Brickland, CCK
5. UEC, Bedok, PIE, CTE, SLE, Yew Tee,
Plenty more, one just have to think hard.
On the issue of buses getting stuck due to jams on expressways, convert road shoulder to buses/emergency vehicle use only. Scheduled fleet will be more optimally deployed