Suggestions to fix rush hour problem at Woodlands Checkpoint
-
What I'm thinking is that,
(This for Singapore to Johor)
After going through immigration at Woodlands checkpoint, merege the queues for SMRT and SBS Transit and join the bus queue into a single line(or two lines) for more efficient bus frequencies and more people therefore can be transferred over to Johor Checkpoint.Causeway Link can also be added in, but SMRT and SBS Transit are two main choices since they are using the same fare payment method.
And because 160,170X and 950 terminate at Kotraya II Ter, after going through Johor checkpoint, their queues can be merged for faster bus frequencies, although it is highely unlikely that most of the passengers will take those buses. 170 terminates at LarkinTer.(This for Johor to Singapore)
The same story really, after going through Johor Checkpoint, merge the queues, BUT after woodlands checkpoint, the berths remain since they split their destinations from thereon.
Good Idea or Bad idea? I don't really see that much cons in this but more pros. People might ask if you get charged more for changing buses(SBS and SMRT only), I can say that from what I know, you're not going to get charged more. -
Good, I've always wanted to hear about what ideas everyone has on this.
-
I took 170X from Kranji MRT towards Woodlands Checkpoint and transferred to 160 towards Johor Bahru.
On the way back, I took 950 from Johor Bahru and changed to 160 at Woodlands Checkpoint towards Kranji MRT. -
Originally posted by SBS2656X:
I took 170X from Kranji MRT towards Woodlands Checkpoint and transferred to 160 towards Johor Bahru.
On the way back, I took 950 from Johor Bahru and changed to 160 at Woodlands Checkpoint towards Kranji MRT.Were you charged extra?
-
back then when DF were not in effect
to Larkin Ter
160/170 at Woodlands checkpoint
and then
170 at JB Old Checkpoint
back in 2007 then
-
Funky, I think it is a great suggestion.
-
cross-operator cross-border service
to Woodlands Int (160/950 - option 1 : change at JB checkpoint)
160 : $0.83
950 : $0.44
total : $1.27
to Woodlands Int (160/950 - option 2 : change at Woodlands checkpoint)
160 : $1.03
950 : $0.24
total : $1.27
to Woodlands Int (950)
950: $1.27
even with this, pax do not pay any extra. however PTOs won't want it.
the good thing is the pooling of bus resources
which PTO would agree on this?
-
Originally posted by SMB145B:
cross-operator cross-border service
to Woodlands Int (160/950 - option 1 : change at JB checkpoint)
160 : $0.83
950 : $0.44
total : $1.27
to Woodlands Int (160/950 - option 2 : change at Woodlands checkpoint)
160 : $1.03
950 : $0.24
total : $1.27
to Woodlands Int (950)
950: $1.27
even with this, pax do not pay any extra. however PTOs won't want it.
the good thing is the pooling of bus resources
which PTO would agree on this?
Why would PTO won't want it when LTA is the one calling the shots?
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
Why would PTO won't want it when LTA is the one calling the shots?
... LTA can do a service on this for the commuters going between SG & JB.
(oops, must have wrote the wrong thing)
the queue lines at the check point
only 160/170 berth is grouped together
950 berth is separate from 160/170 (at the JB Checkpoint towards SG, it is on another side; 160/170 on the left and 950 at the right side)
-
Should re-consolidate JB services.
160, 170, 170X --> transfer to SMRT. 950 already operated by SMRT.
Let KJDEP control these transferred services. Shorter distance than BBDEP also atleast on JB side.
With transfer of 160, 170, 170X to KJDEP, SMRT can transfer 169 to AMDEP (SBST), 854 to AMDEP / BNDEP (SBST) and 190 to BBDEP (SBST).
All gain with no pain.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Should re-consolidate JB services.
160, 170, 170X --> transfer to SMRT. 950 already operated by SMRT.
Let KJDEP control these transferred services. Shorter distance than BBDEP also atleast on JB side.
With transfer of 160, 170, 170X to KJDEP, SMRT can transfer 169 to AMDEP (SBST), 854 to AMDEP / BNDEP (SBST) and 190 to BBDEP (SBST).
All gain with no pain.
Not enough resources to operate cashcow service like 190 still wan trf SBST's share of cross border services to SMRTB??? U are literally killing those people who are frequent riders of SBST's cross borders.
And on the other note, I dun think SMRTB would even wanna let go of 190 unless they are really desperate. The way they operate 190 already gives me goosebumps and now u suggest them handling all cross border services to JB. I mean c'mon just stick to the current status instead of making it much more worst. I don't see anything wrong with slightly longer distance to JB from BBDEP.
At the end of the day SBST's QoS even for cross border is still significantly higher than SMRTB. Not defaming any mentioned PTOs but it's the fact. -
Originally posted by SMB145B:
cross-operator cross-border service
to Woodlands Int (160/950 - option 1 : change at JB checkpoint)
160 : $0.83
950 : $0.44
total : $1.27
to Woodlands Int (160/950 - option 2 : change at Woodlands checkpoint)
160 : $1.03
950 : $0.24
total : $1.27
to Woodlands Int (950)
950: $1.27
even with this, pax do not pay any extra. however PTOs won't want it.
the good thing is the pooling of bus resources
which PTO would agree on this?
I think it's a good idea too
Perhaps instead of having to shoulder loads from another service (esp. 950 pax taking 170), they can pool together proportional number of buses from each service to ply between SG and JB CIQ only as a "Common Causeway Service".
These buses (maybe LE for crush loads) can help to shuttle high number of passengers between the two CIQs at a high frequency, without affecting frequency of local sectors. Perhaps the drivers can also skip passport and vehicle checks too since the buses neither enters SG or MY land if the road in the CIQ allows, except for layovers and mealbreaks.
-
The rear of SMB388S on service 67. First bendy that can be deployed on 950..
[MAN NG363F A24/Gemilang (Licensed Lion's City G design by MAN)]
Info from BIS most popular page on Singapore buses~
-
cross border dun have QoS... The issue is the tickets... who checks.. as in the rights...
-
and the problem is the huge number of pax SMRT is throwing from 856, 911, 913 esp on Friday... mai siao siao... If now I got to hear even AC7 can even have problem re-boarding cos of the spike in numbers at CIQ... That's for valid ticket holders...
-
bus lanes should be built along the causeway to increase efficiency. but i would rather walk across the causeway just like what i used to do several yrs back. its the most efficient. but since the new jb checkpoint was built i dont think can walk across anymore.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Should re-consolidate JB services.
160, 170, 170X --> transfer to SMRT. 950 already operated by SMRT.
Let KJDEP control these transferred services. Shorter distance than BBDEP also atleast on JB side.
With transfer of 160, 170, 170X to KJDEP, SMRT can transfer 169 to AMDEP (SBST), 854 to AMDEP / BNDEP (SBST) and 190 to BBDEP (SBST).
All gain with no pain.
YES YES YES! I AGREE WITH 169!!
-
Isnt there a bus lane after SIN customs towards JB?Problem is who's gonna monitor that lanes during rush hours to deter motorists from using that lane?The bottleneck lane already a pain in the ass...170/170x theres not much problem only 160 @ 950
-
Damn crowded.
-
besides inefficientces in human & vehicular traffic traffic flow due to the CIQ checking process, the other main cause of congestion is the bad road layout design leading to both CIQ complexes in both sides, the Singapore side appearing worse than the Johor side. Road capacity is obviously not enough..1 lane only for cars ??!! Then this stupid practise of shutting off all traffic just to let the lorry convoys cut across for long durations each time..no wonder many times traffic on the causeway is at standstill !
-
Sin customs are worse than JB due to their die2 must check,screen faces and call names..Scared of their own shadows le Sin custom,If my mpv is full tjey would step out and check.one by one also,if i ride my motorbike must take off helmet and ocassionally must ask "Whats ur name"? Duh
-
Holiday weekend damn crowded.
-
It's funny that Causeway Link is always jammed while 2nd link is not as worst as Casueway...
-
Hmm great idea but I'm not sure if the operators would wish to. Currently SBST : SMRT ratio is 2:1, there might be conflict if either operators do not earn much. But still this possibility might somewhat motivates itself to push forward.
-
Originally posted by SBS 7603R:
It's funny that Causeway Link is always jammed while 2nd link is not as worst as Casueway...
From what I've heard, 2nd link security not as strict as the 1st one... [Not sure if it's true]