I believe that those going to the above-mentioned places come mainly from CCK, rather than Tengah AB or LCK area. They can take alternative service 67.Originally posted by SBS9818A:Considering Sv. 175 also serves Teck Whye area and parts of the private estates off Upp Bukit Timah Rd.
But they'd rather take Sv. 175, don't forget Sv. 67 doesn't go into Teck Whye.Originally posted by tranquilice:I believe that those going to the above-mentioned places come mainly from CCK, rather than Tengah AB or LCK area. They can take alternative service 67.
Tibs can always amend the route.Originally posted by SBS9818A:But they'd rather take Sv. 175, don't forget Sv. 67 doesn't go into Teck Whye.
I guess they rather not, they run the risk of offending CCK / Teck Whye residents.Originally posted by tranquilice:Tibs can always amend the route.
But Tibs have already offended a lot of passengers, doing things such as removal of service 989, shortening of service 700 and withdrawn of service 5.Originally posted by SBS9818A:I guess they rather not, they run the risk of offending CCK / Teck Whye residents.
I totally agree with you. I think TIBS just do not like CCK and also not appreachiate the services handed over by SBS to them.Originally posted by tranquilice:But Tibs have already offended a lot of passengers, doing things such as removal of service 989, shortening of service 700 and withdrawn of service 5.
All services?Originally posted by cck_190:I totally agree with you. I think TIBS just do not like CCK and also not appreachiate the services handed over by SBS to them.
and don't forget BP... 344 & 345 were removed due to LRT... Now no svcs to Senja Rd and residents have to walk 400m++ to get home...Originally posted by SBS9818A:I think TIBS were unhappy they were given CCK / BB for some reason.
Then why didnt they keep Punggol/Sengkang?Originally posted by SBS9818A:I think TIBS were unhappy they were given CCK / BB for some reason.
TIBS were ordered to give up the 2 areas when SBS Transit won the bidding of the NEL.Originally posted by leeJZ:Then why didnt they keep Punggol/Sengkang?
Perhaps they were not happy because they got second hand Int from SBST.Originally posted by SBS9818A:I think TIBS were unhappy they were given CCK / BB for some reason.
And the Yew Tee part of CCK is hardly admissible...Originally posted by sbs&tibs:Perhaps they were not happy because they got second hand Int from SBST.
Senja Rd does not have any services in the first place.Originally posted by freakybuses:and don't forget BP... 344 & 345 were removed due to LRT... Now no svcs to Senja Rd and residents have to walk 400m++ to get home...
Ah yes, to them PG/SK was a cash cow, and they were forced to give it back to SBST.Originally posted by leeJZ:Then why didnt they keep Punggol/Sengkang?
I don't think Yew Tee can be an independent town itself, it's too small. Only the Yew Tee GRC is big.Originally posted by freakybuses:And the Yew Tee part of CCK is hardly admissible...
TIBS were ORDERED to give up, not asked whether they want or not. That's 1 of the reasons I can think why TIBS hate CCK/BBOriginally posted by off_service:TIBS were ordered to give up the 2 areas when SBS Transit won the bidding of the NEL.
Except for ME, 190 & 67. I thinkOriginally posted by tranquilice:All services?
Are u sure PG/SK was a cashcow, back then, only little of it was developed. My guess is that TIBS wanted the feeling of developing their own routes from scratch.Originally posted by SBS9818A:Ah yes, to them PG/SK was a cash cow, and they were forced to give it back to SBST.
oh.... i think i am referring to jelapang rd where 345 used to serve...Originally posted by tranquilice:Senja Rd does not have any services in the first place.
Because SK was a growing town.Originally posted by cck_190:Are u sure PG/SK was a cashcow, back then, only little of it was developed. My guess is that TIBS wanted the feeling of developing their own routes from scratch.![]()