We need more terminals like Ghim Moh
-
Originally posted by 105090:
road side terminals looked too 90s, not suitable for the fast-changing urban Singapore though they seems useful and nostalgic.. seriously, they look out-dated and a bit messy and untidy to most people. also, dont think most people staying next to these terminals want it making a din..
maybe SBS is trying hard to make a new terminating point for 64.. who knows
it's likely Sims Place tis area in for re-development. tbh, they should just leave tat terminal alone. Traffic around e area isn't tat heavy either -
Originally posted by TownLink 291:
Uhh.... except the part where the alighting point is next to a rubbish dump
x2..
-
If really need Terminal then built a proper one with shelter and bus lots like Changi Village.
-
a sub-terminal doesn't have to be shabby, roadside or look like something out of the 90s. they can be converted from existing open-air carparks (and the carpark built on top of the terminal). space needed isn't large since it's meant to serve only 2 to 3 routes.
one of the biggest reasons for coming up with this suggestion is that the feeder system is grossly ineffective in my opinion. the transit from train to bus (and vice versa) is around 5 minutes. exlcuding waiting time. total time needed from train to furthest stop of feeder is easily 10 or 11 train stops distance.
-
a sub terminal would be best utilised with full end-on berths. Similar to St Michaels.
-
Reopen of W'lands Centre terminal?
-
Originally posted by 105090:
road side terminals looked too 90s, not suitable for the fast-changing urban Singapore though they seems useful and nostalgic.. seriously, they look out-dated and a bit messy and untidy to most people. also, dont think most people staying next to these terminals want it making a din..
maybe SBS is trying hard to make a new terminating point for 64.. who knows
dont forget 42.. Siglap services.... btw geylang lor 1 terminal should do a make up soon somehow -
ts is a frog in the well living in mount sinai?
haha.
-
Originally posted by bus555:
dont forget 42.. Siglap services.... btw geylang lor 1 terminal should do a make up soon somehowdo note, meal breaks for kembangan mrt svcs need to be done at eunos.
-
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
a sub-terminal doesn't have to be shabby, roadside or look like something out of the 90s. they can be converted from existing open-air carparks (and the carpark built on top of the terminal). space needed isn't large since it's meant to serve only 2 to 3 routes.
one of the biggest reasons for coming up with this suggestion is that the feeder system is grossly ineffective in my opinion. the transit from train to bus (and vice versa) is around 5 minutes. exlcuding waiting time. total time needed from train to furthest stop of feeder is easily 10 or 11 train stops distance.
so we should tear down boon lay, toa payoh, sengkang and amk and relocate them to pioneer, NTU, taman jurong. braddell, lor 8, caldecott hill, compassvale, rivervale, fernvale, anchorvale, cheng san, yck, upp thomson?
already for sengkang. its quite obvious its not gonna be effective as most ppl use the NEL as routes have been cut like crap.
the current system is fine. just that people living in areas served by feeders have to make transfers. if you are lazy at making transfers you have to think SG's population isnt as widely distributed as HK. the government has increased incentives by increasing rebates. transferring is just another 19 cents.
i do agree that some feeders are scarily packed like boon lay and tampines but i believe increasing its fleet or adding a rather parallel feeder route should be able to solve the problem.
-
Actually TS let me think of ex. Svc 71, from Old Upper Thomson Rd to Geylang Lor 1, anyone still can recall this service?
Cheers.
-
Originally posted by .SBS9888Y.:
so we should tear down boon lay, toa payoh, sengkang and amk and relocate them to pioneer, NTU, taman jurong. braddell, lor 8, caldecott hill, compassvale, rivervale, fernvale, anchorvale, cheng san, yck, upp thomson?
already for sengkang. its quite obvious its not gonna be effective as most ppl use the NEL as routes have been cut like crap.
the current system is fine. just that people living in areas served by feeders have to make transfers. if you are lazy at making transfers you have to think SG's population isnt as widely distributed as HK. the government has increased incentives by increasing rebates. transferring is just another 19 cents.
i do agree that some feeders are scarily packed like boon lay and tampines but i believe increasing its fleet or adding a rather parallel feeder route should be able to solve the problem.
no no... we should not tear down the interchanges or lessen their importance in any way.sub-terminals are meant to suplement the interchanges.
-
Originally posted by TIB1234T:
Reopen of W'lands Centre terminal?
Can make into mini bus park
-
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
total time needed from train to furthest stop of feeder is easily 10 or 11 train stops distance.
i dont get you.. give an example? u trying to say some feeders travel the equivilant of 10/11 train stops?
-
Originally posted by .SBS9888Y.:
do note, meal breaks for kembangan mrt svcs need to be done at eunos.
sometime do at bedok right?
-
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
no no... we should not tear down the interchanges or lessen their importance in any way.sub-terminals are meant to suplement the interchanges.
i only know there are terminals and interchanges, i do not comprehend sub-terminals. I seriously disagree all of your thesis, nonsense.
-
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:
i only know there are terminals and interchanges, i do not comprehend sub-terminals. I seriously disagree all of your thesis, nonsense.
to your and my understanding, i'm simply saying build many more terminals in addition to interchanges so that we have more point to point. -
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
a sub-terminal doesn't have to be shabby, roadside or look like something out of the 90s. they can be converted from existing open-air carparks (and the carpark built on top of the terminal). space needed isn't large since it's meant to serve only 2 to 3 routes.
one of the biggest reasons for coming up with this suggestion is that the feeder system is grossly ineffective in my opinion. the transit from train to bus (and vice versa) is around 5 minutes. exlcuding waiting time. total time needed from train to furthest stop of feeder is easily 10 or 11 train stops distance.
if we dun have feeder bus system, for one there wun be last bus to match w/ e MRT and if we have 2 - 3 svs small terminals, chances are ppl would need to make countless transfers along main roads (a bigger bus - bus interchange system).Travelling time would end up longer
-
Originally posted by SGCar:
Actually TS let me think of ex. Svc 71, from Old Upper Thomson Rd to Geylang Lor 1, anyone still can recall this service?
Cheers.
Service 71 Route Details
Geylang Terminal, Geylang Rd, Kallang Rd, Sims Ave, Paya Lebar Rd, Upp Paya Lebar Rd, Upp Serangoon Rd, Yio Chu Kang Rd, Old Upp Thomson Rd, Old Upp Thomson Terminal
Return route is vice versa.
Service 73 from Toa Payoh loops at Old Upp Thomson Ter in the past. -
Having multiple terminals will make passengers to transfer different buses and waste of time and fares. An integrated one stop bus interchange would be an important source of public transport, especially linking to the MRT Stations.
In fact, the suggestion (as per in the title thread) would be very well referring to the 1970s. Sometimes to make travel easier, SBS would implement the Rationalisation exercise to ease travelling time and to intergrate its services and cancel the duplicated ones. So indeed there's no need to built more bus terminals (especially for service with shorter routes).
Take a good example - Toa Payoh Town Centre Terminus (now known as Toa Payoh Bus Interchange)
All of its Toa Payoh services served and terminate at this terminus before a bigger interchange was built. It was well-organised at that time but its route then was quite circuitous until its Toa Payoh Bus Plan was unveiled in 1983, where all of its Toa Payoh Services were re-routed and shortened the time travelling around Toa Payoh and added 6 new feeder service (231, 232, 235, 237, 238, 239) to cover the affected routes used by the Toa Payoh Services that ply around Toa Payoh New Town Neighbourhood.
In fact, a sub-terminal built around Toa Payoh, would not be very effective, as there is only one bus interchange serving the estate. -
Originally posted by sir_peanuts:
to your and my understanding, i'm simply saying build many more terminals in addition to interchanges so that we have more point to point.I think you are still unable to comprehend what are the benefits of a hub- and - spoke format. Instead of Point 2 point system which will cause a wastage of resources and a simply wastage of buses, BC/sl etc, a hub and spoke format is better, wanna go places that int no trunk, can x-fer at other interchanges,