Eunos Chai Chee Bedok TNM CBP ve sv2 to do tfr
Sv9 used to start fr Lor 1, rationalise to Eunos b4 currently serving out of Bedok
47 good? Its a parallel for 12,48
Boosting the capacity of the main will do wonders
Looks like Svc 134, Svc 150 press release is out...
Svc 134 will presumed be controlled by HGDEP
Svc 150 will presumed be controlled by BNDEP
I wonder if Svc 76 will be dual controlled between AMDEP & BNDEP... I hope not unless it is a dual control between AMDEP & HGDEP (which I foresee ppl will start talking about it if it happens)
Given its number, I think 150 may be extended to Bidadari in the future.
P.S. anyone knows 76's new operating hrs? From both YCK and Eunos.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Pretty disappointing. Maybe want to give Tehlok Karau residents door step MRT access since this starts from interchange. This is the only explanation I can think of. Highly duplicative with 13, 15, 155.
BAD MOVE!!
I suppose u mean Marine Terrace... Could be due to residents and MP feedback for bus service to Eunos MRT, since Paya Lebar is further. Nevertheless I expect demand to be limited.
Actually the junction could just be modified to allow right-turning buses from Marine Terrace to Marine Parade Rd, similar to the one at Beauty World for 173, but with traffic lights for both bounds along Marine Parade Rd. Then svc 13 can ply Marine Terrace in both directions.
Originally posted by 7337:Given its number, I think 150 may be extended to Bidadari in the future.
P.S. anyone knows 76's new operating hrs? From both YCK and Eunos.
0545 - 2315, 76A withdrawn
150 is just ridiculous. I give up on LTA. There seem to be narrow interest groups they want to serve in the Marine Parade/East Coast area. LTA doesn't seem to realise there are areas with extremely poor connections (Kembangan, Siglap, Chai Chee, Joo Chiat) and it would be greatly appreaciated if they did something for these areas.
Originally posted by SBS6465E:150 is just ridiculous. I give up on LTA. There seem to be narrow interest groups they want to serve in the Marine Parade/East Coast area. LTA doesn't seem to realise there are areas with extremely poor connections (Kembangan, Siglap, Chai Chee, Joo Chiat) and it would be greatly appreaciated if they did something for these areas.
Agreed, LTA is sleeping
Originally posted by 201911:I suppose u mean Marine Terrace... Could be due to residents and MP feedback for bus service to Eunos MRT, since Paya Lebar is further. Nevertheless I expect demand to be limited.
Actually the junction could just be modified to allow right-turning buses from Marine Terrace to Marine Parade Rd, similar to the one at Beauty World for 173, but with traffic lights for both bounds along Marine Parade Rd. Then svc 13 can ply Marine Terrace in both directions.
Correction, residents in M Parade ve 55,966 esp e latter at super freqs to cater to e MRT taking residents.(nt many)
Reason being to get to town, 36, 48 is way much faster than heading to stn
Assuming at Marine Parade bus stop(blk 57) one board 55 to get to Eunos, by the time 55 reach Eunos. An sv36 (departing the same time as sv55) would be on ECP near Fort Rd
If e junction was ever open for right turning to Marine Parade Rd, it wld b a tall order...
Based on LTA's replies on M Parade Rd, they r simplyadamant on maintaining traffic status quo
Okay so I was at Serangoon Int this evening and saw on SBST's information screen about news of 134 and 150 and I was like WTF???
Seriously, why can't LTA just think of SLIGHTLY better routes than 150? When there are thousands of ways to solve problems without shortening 76 or without having yet another clone of 13/15/155.
I cannot think of any reason for this other than political interest. But again, not sure if they will be happy with the loss of 76.
Originally posted by Acx1688:47 good? Its a parallel for 12,48
Boosting the capacity of the main will do wonders
Agree. Whoever is praising 47 for its TNM-MP connection (and describing Tanah Merah as a golden transfer hub) probably forgot there's 48.
Coming to think about it, the number "48" did not appear in the discussions here at all when 47 was introduced.
Apparently, those services introduced at the end of the year are usually the better ones. 2014 saw introduction of 201, 35, 140 and 2015 saw 117, 117, 983.
But those in Q1/Q2... Really nothing to say. 122 is probably not the worst. I have a sense of feeling 150 may also not be the worst that can happen.
Originally posted by SBS6465E:150 is just ridiculous. I give up on LTA. There seem to be narrow interest groups they want to serve in the Marine Parade/East Coast area. LTA doesn't seem to realise there are areas with extremely poor connections (Kembangan, Siglap, Chai Chee, Joo Chiat) and it would be greatly appreaciated if they did something for these areas.
To be real, route planning by LTA had already gone downhill since the late 1990s when they conducted the Woodlands MRT Rationalization by removing 950/952 which could have served as good alternatives to the MRT right now for Woodlands residents heading to the CBD. It's true that at least they reinstated both in the form of 960, but the detour around Woodlands Rd and Bukit Panjang would have slowed down the journey for Woodlands residents and the MRT ended up being the fastest option between Woodlands and CBD. The removal of TIBS 182 was understandable given that it takes a long way to CBD (similar to 171 now) and heavily duplicates 181 (aka current 961) as well.
Then came the Bukit Panjang LRT Rationalization on 26 Dec 1999, where they removed 179, 344 & 345 without considering that some residential blocks in Bukit Panjang that were served by these services may be of some distance away from the new LRT stations. Moreover, 179 would have also served as a good backup service when the BPLRT experienced many service disruptions during its earlier years of operation. It took them three months to realize that whatever they did was too drastic and introduced 920 to replace part of 344/345's old routes. The withdrawal of 5 and introduction of 970 is already over discussed here so I'll save it.
Then came the even more horrendous NEL Rationalization in 2003, which has also been over discussed here as well so I'll leave it at this.
The Hougang South Int amendments in 2004 were also not really well planned. 328's extension to Serangoon as 101 is not exactly a bad thing, but is duplicative of 81, 82, 107/107M and 153. No comments for 112. 113's detour around Hougang Ave 8/6/10/2 would have been unnecessary if they had amended 62 to serve Kovan MRT and its frequency, again over discussed here, no need to say more.
Since you do not like long distance services, extending 51 further up from Hougang South to Central isn't exactly the best idea and also resulted in lost links between Kovan MRT and Hougang Ave 3, which people had to complain for a not-so-economical 115 to be introduced 8 months later. 132's diversion northwards to Hougang Central also saw lost links between Ang Mo Kio and Kovan (136 takes slightly longer than 132 to provide that connection due to its detour via Serangoon Gardens). 151's extension to Hougang Central is the only one I feel that was fine.
After seeing all these screwed up rationalizations and route amendments from the past, expecting better services isn't really something very realistic at this point, but rather something that you can only wish for. Nevertheless, the set of services introduced by SBST between 2005 and 2007 (5, 43, 45, 48, 52, 57, 58, 59, 109, 175; 181 is more for access to JW Ave 3 rather than an enhancement) and some under the BSEP (860, 50, 4, 20, 904, 972, 49, 371, 121, extension of 103, extension of 99, 118, 979) are admittedly good initiative. This round of service introduction/amendments just isn't as good agreeably.
I wonder why Marine Terrace suddenly need so many service?
Originally posted by SBS7557R:To be real, route planning by LTA had already gone downhill since the late 1990s when they conducted the Woodlands MRT Rationalization by removing 950/952 which could have served as good alternatives to the MRT right now for Woodlands residents heading to the CBD. It's true that at least they reinstated both in the form of 960, but the detour around Woodlands Rd and Bukit Panjang would have slowed down the journey for Woodlands residents and the MRT ended up being the fastest option between Woodlands and CBD. The removal of TIBS 182 was understandable given that it takes a long way to CBD (similar to 171 now) and heavily duplicates 181 (aka current 961) as well.
Then came the Bukit Panjang LRT Rationalization on 26 Dec 1999, where they removed 179, 344 & 345 without considering that some residential blocks in Bukit Panjang that were served by these services may be of some distance away from the new LRT stations. Moreover, 179 would have also served as a good backup service when the BPLRT experienced many service disruptions during its earlier years of operation. It took them three months to realize that whatever they did was too drastic and introduced 920 to replace part of 344/345's old routes. The withdrawal of 5 and introduction of 970 is already over discussed here so I'll save it.
Then came the even more horrendous NEL Rationalization in 2003, which has also been over discussed here as well so I'll leave it at this.
The Hougang South Int amendments in 2004 were also not really well planned. 328's extension to Serangoon as 101 is not exactly a bad thing, but is duplicative of 81, 82, 107/107M and 153. No comments for 112. 113's detour around Hougang Ave 8/6/10/2 would have been unnecessary if they had amended 62 to serve Kovan MRT and its frequency, again over discussed here, no need to say more.
Since you do not like long distance services, extending 51 further up from Hougang South to Central isn't exactly the best idea and also resulted in lost links between Kovan MRT and Hougang Ave 3, which people had to complain for a not-so-economical 115 to be introduced 8 months later. 132's diversion northwards to Hougang Central also saw lost links between Ang Mo Kio and Kovan (136 takes slightly longer than 132 to provide that connection due to its detour via Serangoon Gardens). 151's extension to Hougang Central is the only one I feel that was fine.
After seeing all these screwed up rationalizations and route amendments from the past, expecting better services isn't really something very realistic at this point, but rather something that you can only wish for. Nevertheless, the set of services introduced by SBST between 2005 and 2007 (5, 43, 45, 48, 52, 57, 58, 59, 109, 175; 181 is more for access to JW Ave 3 rather than an enhancement) and some under the BSEP (860, 50, 4, 20, 904, 972, 49, 371, 121, extension of 103, extension of 99, 118, 979) are admittedly good initiative. This round of service introduction/amendments just isn't as good agreeably.
Now 101 at Serangoon does help to take residents to CCL and NEX, and you can often see long queues even at Serangoon Int. But I understand that was not the case in 2004.
By the way, 99 is not under BSEP.
Info nugget:
sv47 long banner w an MP's face was put up progressively around Marine Parade starting from last week, ie end Feb
A whopping 2 months after service is launched... How's tt for efficiency
Based on daily observations, sv47 ridership is low after Parkway Parade, at times moderate in direction twds Oarkway Parade while sv48 is full/standing twds Parkway n full/standing to DTL Bugis stn...
In future i am not suprised if 51 starts from Jurong East-Marina Ctr and new service from Hougang 152 loops at Upp Cross St while 61 is from Eunos-Buona Vista and new service from Bt Batok 104/991 to new bridge rd.
Originally posted by SBS7557R:To be real, route planning by LTA had already gone downhill since the late 1990s when they conducted the Woodlands MRT Rationalization by removing 950/952 which could have served as good alternatives to the MRT right now for Woodlands residents heading to the CBD. It's true that at least they reinstated both in the form of 960, but the detour around Woodlands Rd and Bukit Panjang would have slowed down the journey for Woodlands residents and the MRT ended up being the fastest option between Woodlands and CBD. The removal of TIBS 182 was understandable given that it takes a long way to CBD (similar to 171 now) and heavily duplicates 181 (aka current 961) as well.
Then came the Bukit Panjang LRT Rationalization on 26 Dec 1999, where they removed 179, 344 & 345 without considering that some residential blocks in Bukit Panjang that were served by these services may be of some distance away from the new LRT stations. Moreover, 179 would have also served as a good backup service when the BPLRT experienced many service disruptions during its earlier years of operation. It took them three months to realize that whatever they did was too drastic and introduced 920 to replace part of 344/345's old routes. The withdrawal of 5 and introduction of 970 is already over discussed here so I'll save it.
Then came the even more horrendous NEL Rationalization in 2003, which has also been over discussed here as well so I'll leave it at this.
The Hougang South Int amendments in 2004 were also not really well planned. 328's extension to Serangoon as 101 is not exactly a bad thing, but is duplicative of 81, 82, 107/107M and 153. No comments for 112. 113's detour around Hougang Ave 8/6/10/2 would have been unnecessary if they had amended 62 to serve Kovan MRT and its frequency, again over discussed here, no need to say more.
Since you do not like long distance services, extending 51 further up from Hougang South to Central isn't exactly the best idea and also resulted in lost links between Kovan MRT and Hougang Ave 3, which people had to complain for a not-so-economical 115 to be introduced 8 months later. 132's diversion northwards to Hougang Central also saw lost links between Ang Mo Kio and Kovan (136 takes slightly longer than 132 to provide that connection due to its detour via Serangoon Gardens). 151's extension to Hougang Central is the only one I feel that was fine.
After seeing all these screwed up rationalizations and route amendments from the past, expecting better services isn't really something very realistic at this point, but rather something that you can only wish for. Nevertheless, the set of services introduced by SBST between 2005 and 2007 (5, 43, 45, 48, 52, 57, 58, 59, 109, 175; 181 is more for access to JW Ave 3 rather than an enhancement) and some under the BSEP (860, 50, 4, 20, 904, 972, 49, 371, 121, extension of 103, extension of 99, 118, 979) are admittedly good initiative. This round of service introduction/amendments just isn't as good agreeably.
if 62 would be amended to serve kovan station it would lose the link of tampines road and hougang ave 3. Besides the crash load at kovan station would add on the journey time of +/- 10mins
Originally posted by carbikebus:I wonder why Marine Terrace suddenly need so many service?
For show/political reasons n for LTA to meet its new bus routes(no matter how poorly planned) quarterly KPI.
Gahmen say BSEP 80 new routes, no matter hw absurd the new route/future routes it is, it will go ahead with it.
Folks, rem all these bus routes will eventually need a fare increase to justify its existence.
Is 47 like 117? Even with DDs deployed, the bus is like 'underused'
Originally posted by SBS 9256 X:Looks like Svc 134, Svc 150 press release is out...
Svc 134 will presumed be controlled by HGDEP
Svc 150 will presumed be controlled by BNDEPI wonder if Svc 76 will be dual controlled between AMDEP & BNDEP... I hope not unless it is a dual control between AMDEP & HGDEP (which I foresee ppl will start talking about it if it happens)
I dont think 76 is dual control,Amdep to Eunos is not far,61 also from Amdep.
Originally posted by TIB 585L:Is 47 like 117? Even with DDs deployed, the bus is like 'underused'
Else where LTA wanna deployed those Wrights?No choice huntum only..
New WEG IIs? 48 can use a few... 5, 62 502, 518 too
LTA BSEP is really 'amazing', Service 49 was counted as 3 BSEP services.