I wont really complain even if 969 would be the only bus left...the only thing I worry is of how many buses I must wait next time at the int. at night then
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr lemon1974, I already replied at 3.41pm before you asked 2nd time. This shows that you never read carefully and only cared to keep shooting. Cheers. Thanks.
you reply only "no to remove969", but u never reply on why ppl in the north will complain when DTL3 open...
********my question below************************
so why ppl living in the north have to complain when DTL3 open? still dun understand... are you saying that LTA is going to remove 969 after DTL3 open?
**************your reply below************************************
Hi mr lemon1974, no to remove 969. I expect significant human traffic around tampines concourse bus stops and 969 traffic is going to get even worse. Cheers. Thanks.
I think he is saying that once DTL3 open, more people would conquer 969, but that dosent make much sense since there are still lots of connections around
Originally posted by lemon1974:you reply only "no to remove969", but u never reply on why ppl in the north will complain when DTL3 open...
********my question below************************
Originally posted by lemon1974:so why ppl living in the north have to complain when DTL3 open? still dun understand... are you saying that LTA is going to remove 969 after DTL3 open?
**************your reply below************************************
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr lemon1974, no to remove 969. I expect significant human traffic around tampines concourse bus stops and 969 traffic is going to get even worse. Cheers. Thanks.
Hi mr lemon1974, the reason is also in the 3.41pm message. It is 'I expect significant human traffic around tampines concourse bus stops and 969 traffic is going to get even worse.' This implies human traffic flow for smrt 969 is expected to worsen. Thus queueing time and journey time will be lengthened. Once lengthened, people will complain. Take note in the past, without TPE stop, it is much faster. Cheers. Thanks.
18: Good question. It may be future proofed for extending to Tampines North in the near future.
39: Good question. Loading.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr lemon1974, the reason is also in the 3.41pm message. It is 'I expect significant human traffic around tampines concourse bus stops and 969 traffic is going to get even worse.' This implies human traffic flow for smrt 969 is expected to worsen. Thus queueing time and journey time will be lengthened. Once lengthened, people will complain. Take note in the past, without TPE stop, it is much faster. Cheers. Thanks.
DTL3 does not mean that there will be more traffic for 969.. you are assuming only...basically the ppl taking DTL3 are either currently taking buses or EWL...how many of those driving cars will switch to DTL3?
why you are still talking in the past? in the past, it might be much faster, but it is higher chance that u cant board 969 (when there is lot of rigids) and there are alway jam at SLE/TPE (before the widening) .so u might have to wait a few buses... now 969 is almost full fleet DDs... and after the widening of TPE/SLE area , there are less jam and travelling time is much faster..
Originally posted by lemon1974:DTL3 does not mean that there will be more traffic for 969.. you are assuming only...basically the ppl taking DTL3 are either currently taking buses or EWL...how many of those driving cars will switch to DTL3?
why you are still talking in the past? in the past, it might be much faster, but it is higher chance that u cant board 969 (when there is lot of rigids) and there are alway jam at SLE/TPE (before the widening) .so u might have to wait a few buses... now 969 is almost full fleet DDs... and after the widening of TPE/SLE area , there are less jam and travelling time is much faster..
Hi mr lemon1974, ok thank you for the explanation. I just hope for all the best in the coming months. I am not much affected by the extra 3 bus stops. Once again, thanks. Cheers.
Originally posted by dupdup77:All, I expect many complaints for amended service 969. Many long distance travellers will hate the extra 3 bus stops along tampines ave 9 and tampines concourse road enroute to tampines interchange. Last time they already endured 1 extra TPE stop. Now 3 more to go. As usual, it is still considered quite express. Journey time will be lengthened by another 5-6 mins.
Travellers can only suck thumb. As always, if a bus service needs to pass by a certain route (amended or otherwise) on the way to interchange, it has to stop at the bus stops no matter what. Cheers. Thanks.
Ridiculous move to have 969 have additional stops. First TPE Punggol which okay can be understood, but now 3 other stops? What are they thinking?
Now you know dupdup, anything is possible with LTA. If anyone would have given this suggestion, you would have outright rejected before.
Bad move on 969.
Expected more services at Tampines Concourse.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Ridiculous move to have 969 have additional stops. First TPE Punggol which okay can be understood, but now 3 other stops? What are they thinking?
Now you know dupdup, anything is possible with LTA. If anyone would have given this suggestion, you would have outright rejected before.
Bad move on 969.
better be glad that LTA didnt make 969 terminate at tamp conc
Originally posted by CZT:better be glad that LTA didnt make 969 terminate at tamp conc
Hi mr CZT, the tampines bus interchange is still the main crowd-puller. 969 needs to stop there to connect to all other bus services. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Expected more services at Tampines Concourse.
Hi mr busanalyser, they select 18 and 39 which look not too bad selections. 18 to connects to east side while 39 connects to north area via pasir ris. They also start new service 129 there. Not bad to have 3 to coincide with the opening on 18 dec 2016.
Lucky they did not start 127 at tampines concourse interchange. For a looping route, it is wiser to connect to the main tampines interchange via tampines concourse, providing more convenient short TRUNK services (acting like feeder) for the tampines industrial area to both interchanges as a result (via bus stop outside tampines concourse for the 2nd interchange). I dare say 127 is well planned short route with potential for improvement once industrial area is more developed. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Ridiculous move to have 969 have additional stops. First TPE Punggol which okay can be understood, but now 3 other stops? What are they thinking?
Now you know dupdup, anything is possible with LTA. If anyone would have given this suggestion, you would have outright rejected before.
Bad move on 969.
Hi mr busanalyser, yes I don't like the 3 additional stops on 969. It is the service which is so called 'the gateway to the east'. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr busanalyser, they select 18 and 39 which look not too bad selections. 18 to connects to east side while 39 connects to north area via pasir ris. They also start new service 129 there. Not bad to have 3 to coincide with the opening on 18 dec 2016.
Lucky they did not start 127 at tampines concourse interchange. For a looping route, it is wiser to connect to the main tampines interchange via tampines concourse, providing more convenient short TRUNK services (acting like feeder) for the tampines industrial area to both interchanges as a result (via bus stop outside tampines concourse for the 2nd interchange). I dare say 127 is well planned short route with potential for improvement once industrial area is more developed. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by Sbs6750E:
Lucky 291-293 never move there. Or else residents will 7 morning 8 morning kpkb.
Hi mr sbs6750E, yes I think they do their homework. Feeder services will need to be at main interchange. Anyway I also don't like the whole tampines area. Super squeezy and super packed with human beings. It is like everybody is in a mad rush. So many bus services and so little spaces. Still packed with eateries and other small shops. Furthermore, some times food outlets still with queues end up blocking partially. Don't you think the layout needs a change? Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr sbs6750E, yes I think they do their homework. Feeder services will need to be at main interchange. Anyway I also don't like the whole tampines area. Super squeezy and super packed with human beings. It is like everybody is in a mad rush. So many bus services and so little spaces. Still packed with eateries and other small shops. Furthermore, some times food outlets still with queues end up blocking partially. Don't you think the layout needs a change? Cheers. Thanks.
HAHA u mean 969 queue? When long queues form always block the tender chicken fried food store HAHA bo bian what to do
Originally posted by CZT:better be glad that LTA didnt make 969 terminate at tamp conc
I agree absolutely! If LTA dare to pull this stun off they'll certainly get a ton of complaints! Already there are people complaining about the extra stops on Tampines Concourse, would you imagine the furor if 969 shifts its terminus to Tampines Concourse Interchange instead?
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr busanalyser, yes I don't like the 3 additional stops on 969. It is the service which is so called 'the gateway to the east'. Cheers. Thanks.
For me I am OK with the 3 additional stops either way. People think that "no stops" is good but it can be slow if the traffic lights are not optimized for the bus. Right now the 969 that I'm on right now has stopped at red lights for at least 3 times before even entering TPE (about 1 minute each) so if going through Tampines Concourse results in a net faster journey, then I'd greatly accept it!
In any case if you want a faster journey you should plead LTA to stop padding the bus schedules so much. Bef Punggol Rd/TPE stop to Khatib MRT in 20 mins? Come on, pre-GCM the same journey took at most 15 minutes!
Originally posted by TPS Timothy Mok:18: Good question. It may be future proofed for extending to Tampines North in the near future.
39: Good question. Loading.
Now that I think about it, could this interchange (Tampines Concourse) be eventually replaced by another bus interchange at Tampines North? Seems quite possible (and easy) to extend 18, 39, 129 to Tampines North ...
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Ridiculous move to have 969 have additional stops. First TPE Punggol which okay can be understood, but now 3 other stops? What are they thinking?
Now you know dupdup, anything is possible with LTA. If anyone would have given this suggestion, you would have outright rejected before.
Bad move on 969.
This is not the first time that a route is forced to have additional stops...
Lan lan suck thumb example 1: Svc 168
When 168 was first introduced, the portion between Woodlands Ave 2 and Tampines Ave 10 was non-stop.
Then, a stop at Jln Kayu was added. (I was fine with that initially.)
Then, the exit from TPE (east-bound) to Jln Kayu changed from a slip road into a traffic-light.
Then, a stop at TPE (near Punggol Rd) was added.
Then, there's a new traffic light at Seletar Aerospace Flyover.
Compared to the original route, the current route has 2 additional stops... and 4 additional traffic lights eastbound or 6 traffic lights westbound (including 4 traffic lights on Jln Kayu Flyover alone)...
Lan lan suck thumb example 2: Svc 502
This express service used to be the fastest between Orchard and Jurong East.
Then, SBS changed it into a uni-directional route downtown and added Bayfront Avenue. (If you board at Orchard, you're forced to take a tour of Suntec and Bayfront before hitting the expressway.)
Then, thanks to the opening of MCE and closure of ECP, svc 502 was diverted to serve Central Blvd, Shenton Way and Keppel Rd.
I stopped taking 502 from Orchard to Jurong ever since.
Most of the time, LTA would justify the addition of stops "for the benefit of more passengers". At the end of the day, bus routes are designed to maximise catchment and hence maximise revenue...
The only wise decision I have seen recently is the amendment of svc 518 to ply along KPE and PIE instead of ECP, Bedok South and Bedok North.
By amending 969 to Tampines Concourse, would it finally be enough for LTA to deploy a full DD fleet on 969? Just a thought here ...
Originally posted by autumncs:This is not the first time that a route is forced to have additional stops...
Lan lan suck thumb example 1: Svc 168
When 168 was first introduced, the portion between Woodlands Ave 2 and Tampines Ave 10 was non-stop.
Then, a stop at Jln Kayu was added. (I was fine with that initially.)
Then, the exit from TPE (east-bound) to Jln Kayu changed from a slip road into a traffic-light.
Then, a stop at TPE (near Punggol Rd) was added.
Then, there's a new traffic light at Seletar Aerospace Flyover.
Compared to the original route, the current route has 2 additional stops... and 4 additional traffic lights eastbound or 6 traffic lights westbound (including 4 traffic lights on Jln Kayu Flyover alone)...Lan lan suck thumb example 2: Svc 502
This express service used to be the fastest between Orchard and Jurong East.
Then, SBS changed it into a uni-directional route downtown and added Bayfront Avenue. (If you board at Orchard, you're forced to take a tour of Suntec and Bayfront before hitting the expressway.)
Then, thanks to the opening of MCE and closure of ECP, svc 502 was diverted to serve Central Blvd, Shenton Way and Keppel Rd.
I stopped taking 502 from Orchard to Jurong ever since.Most of the time, LTA would justify the addition of stops "for the benefit of more passengers". At the end of the day, bus routes are designed to maximise catchment and hence maximise revenue...
The only wise decision I have seen recently is the amendment of svc 518 to ply along KPE and PIE instead of ECP, Bedok South and Bedok North.
Haha I can add more to the list for svc 168:
Originally posted by orange28:Haha I can add more to the list for svc 168:
- Extra trafflic light junctions at Tampines Ave 9/Concourse, Tampines Ave 7/Ctrl 7
- Exta bus stop along Tampines Ave 9, near said traffic light junction above