Bus rationlization due to CCL Stage 1 -2
-
Circle Line (CCL) has opened today. This is the perfect moment to guess which bus services will be rationalised before SBS Transit or SMRT Buses does so.
All bus fans, please guess which bus services will be rationalised.
For me:
70 - Yio Chu Kang to Serangoon Station (Loop) [unless demand stipulates like 147]
11 - Withdrawn [unless demand stipulates]
-
147 was spared because of ""political"" intervention, not because NEL dont serve Jln Bear and Bendemeer. 107 and 133 were also similar cases. goodwill services. To tell people that yes, our dear grassroots commitee does listen to residents needs. sometimes 147 frequencies can be compared to 182 or 103M.. no such thing as 5 bus bunching along HG ave 8 anymore
CCL also calls at a large part of Aljunied GRC.. if they chop many services, next GE, this will be a hot topic
I'm a regular of 70. yes, pity that high chance it will go, but I'm expecting it... anyway, 70 takes 45mins to reach suntec from seletar, and irts famous 18min frequencies... only bonus its its empty seats when i board or alight.. the travelling time is wayyyy too long. -
I dont think 107 duplicates with the MRT that much does it......
In 2003 when it was a Serangoon - Shenton Way service iirc it was only Serangoon to Potong Pasir... I dont think those 3 stations warrant a withdrawal?
-
Originally posted by 105090:
147 was spared because of ""political"" intervention, not because NEL dont serve Jln Bear and Bendemeer. 107 and 133 were also similar cases. goodwill services. To tell people that yes, our dear grassroots commitee does listen to residents needs. sometimes 147 frequencies can be compared to 182 or 103M.. no such thing as 5 bus bunching along HG ave 8 anymore
CCL also calls at a large part of Aljunied GRC.. if they chop many services, next GE, this will be a hot topic
I'm a regular of 70. yes, pity that high chance it will go, but I'm expecting it... anyway, 70 takes 45mins to reach suntec from seletar, and irts famous 18min frequencies... only bonus its its empty seats when i board or alight.. the travelling time is wayyyy too long.so in order not to affect too many pax, aside from cutting servcies with a case of outright duplication, a good way is to maintain the bus connections but at a reduced frequencies?
-
Originally posted by SBS7322B:
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.
Well, if you look back, majority of the Potong Pasir residents in fact, even signed a petition to the abolishment of 147 to Potong Pasir, until a point that the complain was sent to the Potong Pasir MP over the unhappiness of a direct linkage to the city from Potong Pasir.
Before that, it was convenient tool. But its just that Potong Pasir residents will have to take 142 to Toa Payoh Int and transfer the MRT, besides taking 142 to Upp Serangoon Rd and transfer another bus to the city (as what I've mentioned earlier on). It was proven an inconvenience.
That was when 147, to them, the Potong pasir Residents is a big controversy, just like the withdrawal of 216, which leads NUS students stranded and had to take 95 or 96. -
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
so in order not to affect too many pax, aside from cutting servcies with a case of outright duplication, a good way is to maintain the bus connections but at a reduced frequencies?
yup! thats an excellent way..
anyway look at 147... a good example.. its at reduced frequency obviously..many people choose to wait for it and squeeze into crowded buses... although most peopl are taking train back..
anyway for CCL, most stations has 2-directional roads serving it... unlike NEL Potong Pasir - Dhoby Gaut where it only calls at North-bound roads.
still, over sometimes, commuters travelling patterns should be observed if they are switching to MRT or remain on buses -
Service 93?
-
93 need to wait till stage 3 or 4 open first..
for now, 70 is duplicating the most.. only guillemard road isnt parallell-ed -
Originally posted by 105090:
93 need to wait till stage 3 or 4 open first..
for now, 70 is duplicating the most.. only guillemard road isnt parallell-ed
lol but does CCL goes to YCK rd area -
Originally posted by bus555:
lol but does CCL goes to YCK rd arearationalising doesnt always mean terminating the service wholly.....
-
Originally posted by sinicker:
rationalising doesnt always mean terminating the service wholly.....
even then 85 was terminated wholly even though the whole southern sector wasnt duplicated with the MRT iirc.
-
Originally posted by SBS8533C:
Well, if you look back, majority of the Potong Pasir residents in fact, even signed a petition to the abolishment of 147 to Potong Pasir, until a point that the complain was sent to the Potong Pasir MP over the unhappiness of a direct linkage to the city from Potong Pasir.
Before that, it was convenient tool. But its just that Potong Pasir residents will have to take 142 to Toa Payoh Int and transfer the MRT, besides taking 142 to Upp Serangoon Rd and transfer another bus to the city (as what I've mentioned earlier on). It was proven an inconvenience.
That was when 147, to them, the Potong pasir Residents is a big controversy, just like the withdrawal of 216, which leads NUS students stranded and had to take 95 or 96.However 147 had to be extended to Hougang and serves the Hougang corridors and Yio Chu Kang Rd.
-
oh yes
Today's ZB reported tat PL bus svs are still as packed as ever.
-
Originally posted by SBS8533C:
Well, if you look back, majority of the Potong Pasir residents in fact, even signed a petition to the abolishment of 147 to Potong Pasir, until a point that the complain was sent to the Potong Pasir MP over the unhappiness of a direct linkage to the city from Potong Pasir.
Before that, it was convenient tool. But its just that Potong Pasir residents will have to take 142 to Toa Payoh Int and transfer the MRT, besides taking 142 to Upp Serangoon Rd and transfer another bus to the city (as what I've mentioned earlier on). It was proven an inconvenience.
That was when 147, to them, the Potong pasir Residents is a big controversy, just like the withdrawal of 216, which leads NUS students stranded and had to take 95 or 96.
think abt it.There isn't enough buses to go around to serve e NE corridor thks to it w/o MRT and it's growing. If 147 had continued to end at Potong Pasir, SBS would face resource squeeze.
As for today, it might ended up withdrawn thks to NEL.
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
think abt it.There isn't enough buses to go around to serve e NE corridor thks to it w/o MRT and it's growing. If 147 had continued to end at Potong Pasir, SBS would face resource squeeze.
As for today, it might ended up withdrawn thks to NEL.
Yes at that time if 147 still continues to loop at Potong Pasir after its amendment to Hougang Ctrl, the travelling time to the CBD from Hougang Ctrl would be longer. Thats how 142 was made to increase the frequency of buses to connect to the Upp Seerangoon Rd and the Toa Payoh MRT.
Same as 82 and 83. With the amendment of 82 to serve Hougang New Town, there was also a public outcry for those who live at the stretch of Upp Serangoon Rd. Those affected passengers would take 327 to Hougang (South) and transfer another bus to the city or either take 84, 136 or 153 from Upper Serangoon Rd. As for 83, the route was withdrawn with 147 covering parts of the 83 route.
Although the strength of public outcry had reached the level of inconvenience, TransitLink has already point out the problems. -
Originally posted by SBS8533C:
Yes at that time if 147 still continues to loop at Potong Pasir after its amendment to Hougang Ctrl, the travelling time to the CBD from Hougang Ctrl would be longer. Thats how 142 was made to increase the frequency of buses to connect to the Upp Seerangoon Rd and the Toa Payoh MRT.
Same as 82 and 83. With the amendment of 82 to serve Hougang New Town, there was also a public outcry for those who live at the stretch of Upp Serangoon Rd. Those affected passengers would take 327 to Hougang (South) and transfer another bus to the city or either take 84, 136 or 153 from Upper Serangoon Rd. As for 83, the route was withdrawn with 147 covering parts of the 83 route.
Although the strength of public outcry had reached the level of inconvenience, TransitLink has already point out the problems.To think of it, most dwelling units are more biased to Hougang Ave 8 tat side.
-
Svc 70 should remain as CCL rail-replacement bus. Others I'm not so sure.
-
Originally posted by SBS8533C:
Yes at that time if 147 still continues to loop at Potong Pasir after its amendment to Hougang Ctrl, the travelling time to the CBD from Hougang Ctrl would be longer. Thats how 142 was made to increase the frequency of buses to connect to the Upp Seerangoon Rd and the Toa Payoh MRT.
Same as 82 and 83. With the amendment of 82 to serve Hougang New Town, there was also a public outcry for those who live at the stretch of Upp Serangoon Rd. Those affected passengers would take 327 to Hougang (South) and transfer another bus to the city or either take 84, 136 or 153 from Upper Serangoon Rd. As for 83, the route was withdrawn with 147 covering parts of the 83 route.
Although the strength of public outcry had reached the level of inconvenience, TransitLink has already point out the problems.
Actually, that happened because of CST's increased popularity in PPS and LTK's shock win in HGN in 1991 GE. A lot of these happened due to politics. -
I wonder if SMRT bus 857 will be affected a not??
-
Originally posted by iveco:
Svc 70 should remain as CCL rail-replacement bus. Others I'm not so sure.
There's no direct bus link to Shenton Way tat CCL could provide. -
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
then interesting why 22 was allowed to duplicate 24 all the way between ang mo kio and ubi...
24 dun ply SGN centre. -
Originally posted by iveco:
Actually, that happened because of CST's increased popularity in PPS and LTK's shock win in HGN in 1991 GE. A lot of these happened due to politics.
if it has to do w/ politics then it's sad because if they dun change bus svs drastically during the new town boom in 1980s and 1990s, SBS wun even be able to cope. -
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
Yeah, it was their bird brains that created the present route 14 seventeen years ago when they merged it with 92 (CLE-PLAB). The only good thing was having more bus models passing my street. It was then that I decided to throw full support for BNDEP as they had majority CRB fleet and route 14 had 9 perm ones.Anyway, SBS(T) learnt from their mistakes, and there is no more service integration to happen (eg 97 + 130, 7 + 18 etc). If 14 goes, what about 51?
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
if it has to do w/ politics then it's sad because if they dun change bus svs drastically during the new town boom in 1980s and 1990s, SBS wun even be able to cope.
Later on HGN Ave 7 area had 87. It was the first trunk route to ply that stretch of road in ages. -
Originally posted by iveco:
Yeah, it was their bird brains that created the present route 14 seventeen years ago when they merged it with 92 (CLE-PLAB). The only good thing was having more bus models passing my street. It was then that I decided to throw full support for BNDEP as they had majority CRB fleet and route 14 had 9 perm ones.Anyway, SBS(T) learnt from their mistakes, and there is no more service integration to happen (eg 97 + 130, 7 + 18 etc). If 14 goes, what about 51?
Back then they wanted to reduce buses plying on the CBD. I believe as anyone w/ sound mind would understand why optimise buses plying CBD.14 could serve ppl to East Coast/ Upp East Coast from Orchard. But issue is back then where are u going to find a terminating point for the bus?