Originally posted by SBS7382C:
to help 24 in the load? anw 22 doesnt follow 24 into boundary rd since the NEL rationalism
likely. but still it's interesting... it's a classic case of why not every duplication should be cut.
Originally posted by SBS8258Y:
there's a diff - 22 calls at bus-stop os serangoon mrt whereas 24 goes straight down boundary rd to upp paya lebar
uh, but duplication came before the amendment. it's more of, if there weren't duplication, service 22 might not be amended in the first place...
I think LTA should not withdraw any bus service if they want to people to give up cars and take public transport. circle line should serve as a compliment to the exsiting bus service. This way it should force sbs to face completion and improve the services it provide.
Originally posted by SMB32T:
Would like to add on to service 11, this service currently serves as a link between Kallang MRT to Kallang Leisure Park. But with the new CCL Stadium MRT this bus service will very likely be withdrawn too.
I will hope that Trunk 24 and 28 will be reduced 1 to 6 fleet of buses due to CCL Stage 2 rationlization for Paya Lebar, Macpherson and Tai Seng.
Originally posted by SMB32T:
Would like to add on to service 11, this service currently serves as a link between Kallang MRT to Kallang Leisure Park. But with the new CCL Stadium MRT this bus service will very likely be withdrawn too.
11 route can be covered by 158 if 11 would be withdrawn, it would benefits residents living in Tanjong Rhu. But I heard that there's plan of shifting Geylang Lor 1 Ter near stadium right? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers.
best is to merge 11 and 175.
anyway i think bus sv 53 and 24 should be merged as they cover abt the same area also
Folks,
Unless you are on the ground taking these buses ev other day, please do not put in assumptions of low demand or route duplication...
take sv147, it runs parrallel to NEL but demand of it is still high coz people do not wan to tfr from train to bus...
Buses provide a direct link to bus stops/people's destinations...
Thank you
Originally posted by SBS9276M:I forsee central planning of bus routes would be like Tokyo style where they make bus routes short like feeders serving commuters nearby to the nearest stations with longhaul routes like Service 14 or 30 non existant in the future
Have you been to Tokyo?!
Do you noe how connected Tokyo is by subway and above ground trains?
Its not possible to happen in SG coz when gahmen want to build MRT, it has to llok at catchment and future potential of land space before a line/station is decided
Originally posted by Tranzort08:anyway i think bus sv 53 and 24 should be merged as they cover abt the same area also
Are u sure? Though the terminating points are nearby each other but the routes are totally different as follows,
Service 24 - AMK to Changi Airport via Boundary Road, Upp Paya Lebar, Eunos, Bedok, Upp Changi Road.
Service 53 - Bishan to Changi Airport via Serangoon, Lor Ah Soo, TPE, Pasir Ris.
Originally posted by Tranzort08:anyway i think bus sv 53 and 24 should be merged as they cover abt the same area also
Bishan to Ang Mo Kio via Changi Airport
Nice.
Originally posted by Acx1688:Have you been to Tokyo?!
Do you noe how connected Tokyo is by subway and above ground trains?
Its not possible to happen in SG coz when gahmen want to build MRT, it has to llok at catchment and future potential of land space before a line/station is decided
I have been to Tokyo before and I am quite familiar with the railway system in Tokyo, it is totally different compare to Singapore. The commuter trains serve as a main transportation, plus there are also many different subway and railway lines operating within Tokyo metropolitan/outskirt areas. Note that some private railway lines do duplicate with the main Tokyo JR line and the different railway companies can compete with each other. Another special thing I observe is that the subway lines do have through services to continue along the private railway commuter lines to the outskirt areas.
Service 147 was spared from rationalisation from all other services, becoming the only service left to ply the NEL route. This is to allow choices fro commuters, as good public transport systems should allow commuters to have choices. It also serves as a service to bring people from the stations to segments of the line where there is no station. To take note: Bendemeer Road, Jalan Besar and Bencoolen street are not exactly on the NEL.
So, rationlisation should still take place, like what happened to Services 81, 82, 106, 111, while some services should continue to retain. In the case of CCL, it is built in a way where around 50% of the line does not follow any road (quite high), but for stage 1 and 2, there is this stretch that follows (Serangoon - Paya Lebar) with bus service, and seriously speaking quite short. So, I guess that if possible, Service 70 will be one that is rationalised (cut to Serangoon/Tai Seng). If we look at the services rationalised, it's all in the manner where one side of the route has MRT service, the other without. Some services are likely to be rationalised such that they are linked to MRT stations instead. Could 158 probably loop in to Stadium?
Originally posted by Acx1688:Have you been to Tokyo?!
Do you noe how connected Tokyo is by subway and above ground trains?
Its not possible to happen in SG coz when gahmen want to build MRT, it has to llok at catchment and future potential of land space before a line/station is decided
Agreed. Tokyo's subway coverage is unparalleled. With the Fukutoshin Line, every road inside the "Yamanote Ring" that can be dug is dug for subway.
But the investment on subway is worth it for them because of the immense flow of passengers within and also into and out of Tokyo everyday. We can never reach the kind of coverage required given our population size without paying too much and underutilizing them, so it might still be more economical to have buses plying like they are now, and not as feeders from major stations like Tokyo has.
Originally posted by LTnF1fan:So, rationlisation should still take place, like what happened to Services 81, 82, 106, 111, while some services should continue to retain. In the case of CCL, it is built in a way where around 50% of the line does not follow any road (quite high), but for stage 1 and 2, there is this stretch that follows (Serangoon - Paya Lebar) with bus service, and seriously speaking quite short. So, I guess that if possible, Service 70 will be one that is rationalised (cut to Serangoon/Tai Seng). If we look at the services rationalised, it's all in the manner where one side of the route has MRT service, the other without. Some services are likely to be rationalised such that they are linked to MRT stations instead. Could 158 probably loop in to Stadium?
There exists a strong demand from sv70 from shenton way to guillemard area all the way to Upp paya lebar as i mentioned earlier for commuters to alight at their bus stop.
sv158 looping at stadium will cause chaos to the already tight schedule provided SBST wants to increase its fleet size...
Do note thet Dunman High students are a priority when it comes to sv158's route/schedule/capacity so cutting sv158 to detour to stadium is unlikely
Originally posted by Acx1688:There exists a strong demand from sv70 from shenton way to guillemard area all the way to Upp paya lebar as i mentioned earlier for commuters to alight at their bus stop.
sv158 looping at stadium will cause chaos to the already tight schedule provided SBST wants to increase its fleet size...
Do note thet Dunman High students are a priority when it comes to sv158's route/schedule/capacity so cutting sv158 to detour to stadium is unlikely
not to forget 158 is the only service that enters tj rhu area....
Originally posted by SBS7382C:not to forget 158 is the only service that enters tj rhu area....
sv158 can actuali can cut into Nat Stadium via the link bridge but that would only increase run time...
Originally posted by LTnF1fan:
So, rationlisation should still take place, like what happened to Services 81, 82, 106, 111, while some services should continue to retain. In the case of CCL, it is built in a way where around 50% of the line does not follow any road (quite high), but for stage 1 and 2, there is this stretch that follows (Serangoon - Paya Lebar) with bus service, and seriously speaking quite short. So, I guess that if possible, Service 70 will be one that is rationalised (cut to Serangoon/Tai Seng).
If this is the case I also feel the same for service 24 too. It duplicates service 22 from AMK to MacPherson (except for the Serangoon MRT part) and also parallel along the CCL and EWL lines. At most service 24 might cutback to Bedok (becoming the former service 34 route).
Whereas service 22 will remain its route as where it is.
Actually, packing passengers from the duplicating sector onto sv 24 and cutback sv 22, we might end up having to put extra buses on sv 24 and have to run a 24A since the portion before paya lebar station and after will be very loopsided.
Too early to make assumptions larhs.
Originally posted by LTnF1fan:Service 147 was spared from rationalisation from all other services, becoming the only service left to ply the NEL route. This is to allow choices fro commuters, as good public transport systems should allow commuters to have choices. It also serves as a service to bring people from the stations to segments of the line where there is no station. To take note: Bendemeer Road, Jalan Besar and Bencoolen street are not exactly on the NEL.
There was once several Potong Pasir Residents had complain about 147 and had suggested 147 to loop at Potong Pasir instead. The complains were due to the abolishment of direct links from Potong Pasir to the city, with the closure of Potong Pasir Ter and the amendment of 147 to Hougang Ctrl. That was in March 1992.
The only way to get into town is taking 142 to a nearby bus stop along Upp Serangoon Rd and take another service like 82, 133, 147 that goes to the town areas. Potong Pasir residents were left out when there is only service 142 serving between Toa Payoh & Potong Psair. To them, it was the hassle and a source of inconvenience that residents had to spend on bus fares and increase travelling time from Potong Pasir to town via 2 bus services.
Originally posted by ^tamago^:Actually, packing passengers from the duplicating sector onto sv 24 and cutback sv 22, we might end up having to put extra buses on sv 24 and have to run a 24A since the portion before paya lebar station and after will be very loopsided.
thats whr cutting of long haul fits in.
Originally posted by SBS7485P:thats whr cutting of long haul fits in.
care to explain?
we can see wads gona happen tmr when the ccl opens...
Originally posted by SBS8533C:
There was once several Potong Pasir Residents had complain about 147 and had suggested 147 to loop at Potong Pasir instead. The complains were due to the abolishment of direct links from Potong Pasir to the city, with the closure of Potong Pasir Ter and the amendment of 147 to Hougang Ctrl. That was in March 1992.
The only way to get into town is taking 142 to a nearby bus stop along Upp Serangoon Rd and take another service like 82, 133, 147 that goes to the town areas. Potong Pasir residents were left out when there is only service 142 serving between Toa Payoh & Potong Psair. To them, it was the hassle and a source of inconvenience that residents had to spend on bus fares and increase travelling time from Potong Pasir to town via 2 bus services.
I actually think the system in Potong Pasir is considered quite good already. Since I take 147+142 to school everyday, it's pretty efficient nowadays.