Network Rationalisation: Services 62, 82, 103, 107, 378, 379
-
SBST has originally planned to amend services 133 and 147 under this 3rd phase.
-
You shouldn't blame SBST, blame TransitLink instead.
-
So which is the service that they originally planned to withdraw?
-
They had better not take my 133, or else... (huddles protectively over it)
-
Service 133 is a very popular service in Ang Mo Kio and Serangoon. I don't think SBST will amend it but do not put away possibilities of them amending it once the whole NEL saga is over.
As for the amended service 107, I don't think SBST will deploy double deckers on it. This will make some of the exisiting and soon-to-be-amended service 82 passengers to take NEL. -
Ultimately it all depends on the loads of the particular service. We can't speculate too soon.Originally posted by off_service:Service 133 is a very popular service in Ang Mo Kio and Serangoon. I don't think SBST will amend it but do not put away possibilities of them amending it once the whole NEL saga is over.
As for the amended service 107, I don't think SBST will deploy double deckers on it. This will make some of the exisiting and soon-to-be-amended service 82 passengers to take NEL. -
Just following up on my question... Think this service has got to be 103 cos there's already 70 operating from Serangoon to the Yio Chu Kang Road area and they'll probably have merged 378 and 379 instead.Originally posted by foxtrot1985:So which is the service that they originally planned to withdraw? -
I felt that 133 could be integrated with 107...except it wun go shenton way at all...133 could go into geylang bahru instead of lavender street lor..
-
After Kallang Bahru, will the integrated service follows service 107 route or service 133 route?Originally posted by Zilchster:I felt that 133 could be integrated with 107...except it wun go shenton way at all...133 could go into geylang bahru instead of lavender street lor..
I have actually like to see services 103 integrate with service 107, a new service operating between Jln Kayu and Shenton Way/Marina Centre. -
oh pls pls pls!!! Don't push all the blames to SBST! TransitLink is the main mastermind that does the Rationalisation! All along, u people have been thinking it that way, which is ultimately wrong! Can't u guys see that the poster it's of TRANSITLINK, with the URL http://www.transitlink.com.sg???
-
Most likely that the amended 107 would get double decker buses since the amount of passengers would shift from amended Sv 82 to Sv 107.Originally posted by off_service:Service 133 is a very popular service in Ang Mo Kio and Serangoon. I don't think SBST will amend it but do not put away possibilities of them amending it once the whole NEL saga is over.
As for the amended service 107, I don't think SBST will deploy double deckers on it. This will make some of the exisiting and soon-to-be-amended service 82 passengers to take NEL.
Yes, Sv 133 is very popular! In weekends, double decker buses can be as full as 95%! Well, it's the only route to get commuters from Serangoon to Suntec, or even AMK to suntec, despise of the MRT to City Hall and transfer to shuttle bus provided by Suntec. Well, public buses having better connectivity to places, esp the doorsteps of certain places. -
My proposed amended 133 will follow the normal 133 route after geylang bahru...from lavendar onwards
-
Jln Kayu Terminal was have to been closed anyway. So there's no point terminating it at Jln Kayu. Maybe add a little diversion to Sengkang via TPE and Sengkang West Drive(flyover open to traffic since October)Originally posted by tranquilice:After Kallang Bahru, will the integrated service follows service 107 route or service 133 route?
I have actually like to see services 103 integrate with service 107, a new service operating between Jln Kayu and Shenton Way/Marina Centre. -
Under the current framework (and it has been so in the past), the individual bus companies submit proposals for route changes (intorduction, amendments, extensions or withdrawls) to Public Transport Council, whose members (SBST, TIBS, TransitLink and PTC Council) discuss and decide if it should be implemented. but many many years ago whenever there are route changes, they are announced by TransitLink so they have the old "blue sky white plate" design used in current rationalisation exercises (try remembering) whereas now they are announced by the individual companies since it gives them flexibility on the annoucement and introduction of changes after their proposals have been accepted by all the parties.Originally posted by SBS9816E:oh pls pls pls!!! Don't push all the blames to SBST! TransitLink is the main mastermind that does the Rationalisation! All along, u people have been thinking it that way, which is ultimately wrong! Can't u guys see that the poster it's of TRANSITLINK, with the URL http://www.transitlink.com.sg???
it is actually SBS Transit who decides what it wanted to do with its services due to NEL and submit to PTC, awaiting approval. but for network rationalisation purposes, it serves more purpose for TransitLink, who am supposedly having the task of intergrating the different companies' transport services, to have announcements for network rationalisation done under its banner. the route changes have been decided by SBS Transit, not TransitLink.
the original idea actually was to have SBST 133 divert to Serangoon Central to bring connections to Serangoon Station since it is duplicating SBST 135 at Serangoon Avenue 3 from Lor Chuan (Serangoon Avenue 3) to Upp S'goon Rd (Braddell Rd) and the area Serangoon Avenue 3 is just a small HDB estate to SBS Transit. but they dropped the idea after it has been decided that they could do away with the changes since SBST 133 still interchanges with NEL at Potong Pasir and Boon Keng and affect less people. it is thus actually similar to the Phase I rationalisations but they actually needed more time to think about this as Phase I services mostly skip only one bus stop due to the rationalisation while they will have to skip a whole estate here. and considering SBST 133 is doing well on its own and popular with the Serangoon Avenue 3 estate residents they might as well keep it. also, there are a lot of students who travel from Ang Mo Kio to Nanyang Junior College and Zhonghua Secondary School in the vicinity in the morning and they can't possibly move all the demand to SBST 135, who together with SBST 135A, runs at full capacity in the morning from Ang Mo Kio Interchange to Serangoon Avenue 3 even with three-to-five-minute intervals aggregate. also, remember their revenues from bus division dropped due to rationalisations so they can't afford to rationalise somemore due to NEL 'cause it's like shooting at their own feet.
as for SBST 147, i don't know about it, but i suppose it could be cut short to Clementi - Marina Centre or Clementi - Serangoon, but they decided to just keep it first since Marina Centre is too crowded there. As for Serangoon, it does not have high demand actually to jusitfy it anyway and there might be too many services terminating at Serangoon for its good. Also, as in SBST 133's case, SBST 147 is doing well on its own right so they might as well keep it. they are starting to learn that NEL will have to complement to a greater degree of its bus services rather than having bus services complement to a large degree the NEL to keep revenues coming in. they are just putting themselves in good light by saying that they are reducing the number of passengers affected following the complaints by the north-east residents. to them, it is a win-win situation for keeping SBST 133 and 147.
SBS Transit has become more cautious now and not resorting to big changes to its services that remove original links that have been serving the area before NEL hence service 82 is kept. this way they wouldn't incur the wrath of the residents. u can't say keeping both SBST 82 and 107 is a stupid decision even if it is not efficient in the allocation of resources. but if they withdraw SBST 82 due to, supposedly, low demand a few months after this, they can do so justified and making themselves a more caring transport operator. thus in this exercise, they are not exactly considering the whole area but jus fiddling with individual services. as for SBST 107, it is not following SBST 82's route from Serangoon to Punggol as they do not want to create another Punggol to town service that wastes resources yet at the same time they want more demand catchment for their SBST 107, which is currently scrapping through due to its low-to-medium-demand since Serangoon and Potong Pasir are not very populated. thus they decided to extend it to Hougang to get more people to take it. realise they are not forcing people to only take trains now but leaving buses running for medium distances along the NEL but definitely not keeping those that runs like the full length of NEL except perhaps a couple, like SBST 80 (Sengkang - HarbourFront), possibly also because it is doing well and it is not exactly duplicating NEL as it travels to Aljunied also.
the most clever decision is, of course, to merge SBST 103, 378 and 379 as it truely removes duplication and makes more efficient use of resources. -
Beside Sengkang, the service can terminate at Punggol interchange using Punggol Way and Punggol Central. Currently, from Sengkang, there's already service 86 to Jln Kayu and service 163 to southern part of Jln Kayu. So, a new link can be created between Punggol and Jln Kayu, without having to transfer at Sengkang.Originally posted by SBS9818A:Jln Kayu Terminal was have to been closed anyway. So there's no point terminating it at Jln Kayu. Maybe add a little diversion to Sengkang via TPE and Sengkang West Drive(flyover open to traffic since October) -
-
-
-
-
-
Logical too, but the route would be a little too long-winded.Originally posted by tranquilice:Beside Sengkang, the service can terminate at Punggol interchange using Punggol Way and Punggol Central. Currently, from Sengkang, there's already service 86 to Jln Kayu and service 163 to southern part of Jln Kayu. So, a new link can be created between Punggol and Jln Kayu, without having to transfer at Sengkang. -
If this is the case, then why did TIBS propose to cut 106 short to Marina Centre so that commuters are forced to take their rival's NEL during the 1st phase of the bus rationalisation?Originally posted by ^tamago^:Under the current framework (and it has been so in the past), the individual bus companies submit proposals for route changes (intorduction, amendments, extensions or withdrawls) to Public Transport Council, whose members (SBST, TIBS, TransitLink and PTC Council) discuss and decide if it should be implemented. but many many years ago whenever there are route changes, they are announced by TransitLink so they have the old "blue sky white plate" design used in current rationalisation exercises (try remembering) whereas now they are announced by the individual companies since it gives them flexibility on the annoucement and introduction of changes after their proposals have been accepted by all the parties.
it is actually SBS Transit who decides what it wanted to do with its services due to NEL and submit to PTC, awaiting approval. but for network rationalisation purposes, it serves more purpose for TransitLink, who am supposedly having the task of intergrating the different companies' transport services, to have announcements for network rationalisation done under its banner. the route changes have been decided by SBS Transit, not TransitLink. -
In my opinion, and as far as I know, it is SBST which proposed to PTC to change its routes under the NEL rationalisation exercise. However, it's Transitlink which changed Tibs routes under the NEL rationalisation exercise, as it's obvious that Tibs would not change its route itself in the rival area as that mean the loss of passengers to the rival's NEL. So Transitlink has to step in.Originally posted by foxtrot1985:If this is the case, then why did TIBS propose to cut 106 short to Marina Centre so that commuters are forced to take their rival's NEL during the 1st phase of the bus rationalisation? -
that, i agree with tranquilice on the amendment to TIBS 106. it is most likely that the PTC members and TransitLink persuaded TIBS to do so. after all, TIBS cannot say no, can they?Originally posted by foxtrot1985:If this is the case, then why did TIBS propose to cut 106 short to Marina Centre so that commuters are forced to take their rival's NEL during the 1st phase of the bus rationalisation? -
So that's why you can't say Transitlink is 100% not responsible for route changes what...
