New Bus Services Announced by LTA/PTOs
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr busanalyser, I do not like to get into a war of words. This is my style and has always been. I don't teach people and I don't expect any credits. Everybody who reads all these knows who always starts off all these nonsense and who likes to shoot people. You are one who is boastful and brings down people by your comments. Only knows how to criticize the authority when you don't get it your way. You have shot me few times while I still remain passive and do not bother to get into all these rubbish. Show your knowledge without being disrespectful to others. Keep on shooting me and show to others your naivety. This is not the first time. If admins here can ban people who always shoots people, you will definitely be one of them. I rest my case. Cheers.
Well... stop "teaching" and stop taking side of LTA every single time. I "do not" criticize LTA all the time. They are not perfect, but I defend their routes like sv 49, 121 and sv 386... even though many ppl criticize.
You irritate me... coz anyone posts anything... u will say LTA will not allow this and LTA will not allow that... let ppl post freely...
All I was suggesting is 116 needs to be amended. I also gave my proposal which is definitely good and will not upset current commuters. I don't see any reason why you should keep on arguing to defend 116 which apart from me numerous other users have said is waste of money or let me put it politically more correct "not best use of our money".
If I was saying something similar about sv 4 or sv 20 or sv 50 or sv 972... yes you can shoot me down... but after telling you that I have observed this service 20+ times at NEX on 20 different days... taken it 10+ times... observed it equal number of times at HCI... you still want to show you are right... last time you said "today I saw sv 116 has around 40 pax"... u are saying 40 pax as if the bus is bursting. Your statement itself shows that sv 116 rarely gets 40 pax also...
Go on the ground and observe. If not, just shut your mouth. And I will be harsh with you, coz you really irritate me with your nonsensical posts. Sorry others for my language.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr TIB868X, why not? Do something constructive. Write in. If fail, write to your RC or even the MP if you think lobbying helps. At least if he or she cannot help, then at least you know you have done something. Better than lament here and there or in forums online lambasting the authority. Sbs 49 route was amended due to feedback to the RC and MP. Cheers.
You go on talking about sbs 49... it is not a major amendment... all they did is extended the route by 3 stops... which should have been done originally itself... next u will say sv 143M got a new stop along WC... shouldn't it have got it in the first place? Then we show... oh wow... new improvement.
-
Originally posted by 23ispolo:
Not trying to critcise your route, but you have 82 from Punggol to Serangoon Ctrl (Loop)...
43M also is Punggol to Serangoon.
purpose of my suggestion was to merge 43M and 116 together thus withdrawal of either one services, such that resources can be utilised on other sides. The reason why I made the route this way was to try and retain the originality of 116 aft combining with 43M, and thus it became an amended version of 43M and runs from Punggol to Serangoon.
The proposed amended route can utilise current fleet of service 116+43M Citaros, where Wrights can be used to boost the full route of Service 43.
some sort of win win situation
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Well if you want to get into a wally of words, we can... You also seem to "know it all" even without doing ground work, and teach everyone here... how LTA is doing the right thing here and there. If you don't agree, learn to rest your arguments rather than go on and on.. or maybe you are paid for it.
Hi admin, if you can ban people, I suggest you ban mr busanalyser from sgbuses. Show them you are not afraid of banning popular but totally rude and disrespectful people. See the way this was written. This is not the first time. Totally lack of respect. Suggesting I am being bought over. Oh my goodness. Admin, I hope you can do something about this. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
You go on talking about sbs 49... it is not a major amendment... all they did is extended the route by 3 stops... which should have been done originally itself... next u will say sv 143M got a new stop along WC... shouldn't it have got it in the first place? Then we show... oh wow... new improvement.
Next is new stop for 43M along Punggol Central/Boundary and they start talking again
-
Alright, both of you stop the arguments and lets get back to original discussion about underutilised routes.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Well... stop "teaching" and stop taking side of LTA every single time. I "do not" criticize LTA all the time. They are not perfect, but I defend their routes like sv 49, 121 and sv 386... even though many ppl criticize.
You irritate me... coz anyone posts anything... u will say LTA will not allow this and LTA will not allow that... let ppl post freely...
All I was suggesting is 116 needs to be amended. I also gave my proposal which is definitely good and will not upset current commuters. I don't see any reason why you should keep on arguing to defend 116 which apart from me numerous other users have said is waste of money or let me put it politically more correct "not best use of our money".
If I was saying something similar about sv 4 or sv 20 or sv 50 or sv 972... yes you can shoot me down... but after telling you that I have observed this service 20+ times at NEX on 20 different days... taken it 10+ times... observed it equal number of times at HCI... you still want to show you are right... last time you said "today I saw sv 116 has around 40 pax"... u are saying 40 pax as if the bus is bursting. Your statement itself shows that sv 116 rarely gets 40 pax also...
Go on the ground and observe. If not, just shut your mouth. And I will be harsh with you, coz you really irritate me with your nonsensical posts. Sorry others for my language.
Admin, please ban mr busanalyser from sgforums. Do not be rude to fellow forumers. Thanks.
-
To be honest, I find that some BSEP servces can be extended and merged to become longer services to enhance connectivity.
For example,
Service 120 can be extended and merged with 201 to ply New Bridge Road-Pandan Gardens
Service 116 would have more potential loading if merged with service 43M
Service 141 merged with 159 to ply Sengkang-Lor 1 Geylang
-
Both of you just STOP
you are making this thread popular for the wrong reasons.
-
I predict some misconception for Service 35 as usual for red/white plate service extensions as seen from previous experience on 123M. Luckily some bus enthusiasts helped the BCs on the bus while joyriding to explain to passengers. An OCC Staff was deployed to Bukit Purmei too
i foresee that an OCC staff member will be deployed at Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal for the first day. Maybe the sign explaining red/white plate system found at Bukit Purmei will have a similar copy at Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal.
However I think that SBST has received feedback regarding confusion and thus for 49, the destos have the destination labeled on them and placed nearer to the door
I feel that SBST should format the EDS back to two-directional EDS format in order to reduce confusion.
-
Originally posted by TIB1112L:
Both of you just STOP
you are making this thread popular for the wrong reasons.
I did not do anything wrong. When others abuse me, I do not rebut back. I go through proper channel of looking for the admin. My motto is never ever been rude and disrespectful to fellow forumers. All are free to voice out their opinions. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by TIB1112L:
To be honest, I find that some BSEP servces can be extended and merged to become longer services to enhance connectivity.
For example,
Service 120 can be extended and merged with 201 to ply New Bridge Road-Pandan Gardens
Service 116 would have more potential loading if merged with service 43M
Service 141 merged with 159 to ply Sengkang-Lor 1 Geylang
Hi mr TIB1112, no offence please. Combining sbs 120 and sbs 201 will be a bit long-winded. Just my two cents worth. Cheers.
-
Calls for +1.
-
LTA is not perfect. Data analysis has its limitations especially when it comes to covering totally new catchment areas.
Whether underutilisation of a route is a problem depends on how you view bus services as a whole.
Private operators who do route planning tend to focus on patronage numbers and profit maximisation. That is why many of our trunk routes are very long and winding.
The other approach taken up by governments is to treat bus routes as provision of a social good. BSEP involving new catchment areas seem to have taken on this approach. That means the route is designed in a manner that may be underutilized and loss-making, but is there because of the important links that it provides to the community. In other countries, this usually refers to the elderly and the low-income earners who cannot afford a car.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
LTA is not perfect. Data analysis has its limitations especially when it comes to covering totally new catchment areas.
Whether underutilisation of a route is a problem depends on how you view bus services as a whole.
Private operators who do route planning tend to focus on patronage numbers and profit maximisation. That is why many of our trunk routes are very long and winding.
The other approach taken up by governments is to treat bus routes as provision of a social good. BSEP involving new catchment areas seem to have taken on this approach. That means the route is designed in a manner that may be underutilized and loss-making, but is there because of the important links that it provides to the community. In other countries, this usually refers to the elderly and the low-income earners who cannot afford a car.
Hi mr sgbuses, good point. Not every service needs to maximize its loading. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Admin, please ban mr busanalyser from sgforums. Do not be rude to fellow forumers. Thanks.
Cheers.
-
Pictures of new bus stops for Service 140:
St George's Rd Blk 1 - Half completed with shelter, seats and bus stop pole yet to be installed
St Wilfred Rd Blk 15 - Only bollards have been installed. Bus stops opposite St Wilfrid Squash & Tennis Ctr, making it real close to the next stop if the distance to looping point were to be discounted.
Looping point roundabout:
St George's Rd Blk 14: Pretty much the same state as the stop opposite.
Pair of stops:
Random thoughts:
1. Does anyone know if the old Service 20 plies St George's Lane in the past with those Mercedes Benz midibuses? I vaguely recall seeing defunct bus stops along the road a couple of years back before they were demolished. The road has no roundabout so 3-point turn would be required.2. The completeness of Service 140 could be enhanced if LTA can somehow connect St Wilfred Rd to Jln Semerbak. Service 140 can then loop at Mar Thoma Rd and re-enter Serangoon Rd using St Michael's Rd. Even though the vicinity of St Michael's Rd comprise mainly landed properties, Service 140 could potentially benefit the upcoming HDB residents at Tenteram Peak if such extension could be realised. The major obstacle would be to ensure that the landed home owners not park their cars along the narrow roads so that bus ops can go on smoothly.
-
Originally posted by Simply.90:
Pictures of new bus stops for Service 140:
St George's Rd Blk 1 - Half completed with shelter, seats and bus stop pole yet to be installed
St Wilfred Rd Blk 15 - Only bollards have been installed. Bus stops opposite St Wilfrid Squash & Tennis Ctr, making it real close to the next stop if the distance to looping point were to be discounted.
Looping point roundabout:
St George's Rd Blk 14: Pretty much the same state as the stop opposite.
Pair of stops:
Random thoughts:
1. Does anyone know if the old Service 20 plies St George's Lane in the past with those Mercedes Benz midibuses? I vaguely recall seeing defunct bus stops along the road a couple of years back before they were demolished. The road has no roundabout so 3-point turn would be required.2. The completeness of Service 140 could be enhanced if LTA can somehow connect St Wilfred Rd to Jln Semerbak. Service 140 can then loop at Mar Thoma Rd and re-enter Serangoon Rd using St Michael's Rd. Even though the vicinity of St Michael's Rd comprise mainly landed properties, Service 140 could potentially benefit the upcoming HDB residents at Tenteram Peak if such extension could be realised. The major obstacle would be to ensure that the landed home owners not park their cars along the narrow roads so that bus ops can go on smoothly.
Yes.. even I thought of it... that would enhance connectivity further... but for now... at least have stop within good walking distance... happy moment for Wilfred/Georges estate people.
-
Im sure LTA will install cameras to deter drivers parking their vehicles impropriately
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
LTA is not perfect. Data analysis has its limitations especially when it comes to covering totally new catchment areas.
Whether underutilisation of a route is a problem depends on how you view bus services as a whole.
Private operators who do route planning tend to focus on patronage numbers and profit maximisation. That is why many of our trunk routes are very long and winding.
The other approach taken up by governments is to treat bus routes as provision of a social good. BSEP involving new catchment areas seem to have taken on this approach. That means the route is designed in a manner that may be underutilized and loss-making, but is there because of the important links that it provides to the community. In other countries, this usually refers to the elderly and the low-income earners who cannot afford a car.
thus they are extending 35 to test out loadings :D
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Admin, please ban mr busanalyser from sgforums. Do not be rude to fellow forumers. Thanks.
...
-
Originally posted by TIB1112L:
To be honest, I find that some BSEP servces can be extended and merged to become longer services to enhance connectivity.
For example,
Service 120 can be extended and merged with 201 to ply New Bridge Road-Pandan Gardens
Service 116 would have more potential loading if merged with service 43M
Service 141 merged with 159 to ply Sengkang-Lor 1 Geylang
Will they be counted as 2 services? If not, that should explain why LTA is not merging these services.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Well... stop "teaching" and stop taking side of LTA every single time. I "do not" criticize LTA all the time. They are not perfect, but I defend their routes like sv 49, 121 and sv 386... even though many ppl criticize.
You irritate me... coz anyone posts anything... u will say LTA will not allow this and LTA will not allow that... let ppl post freely...
All I was suggesting is 116 needs to be amended. I also gave my proposal which is definitely good and will not upset current commuters. I don't see any reason why you should keep on arguing to defend 116 which apart from me numerous other users have said is waste of money or let me put it politically more correct "not best use of our money".
If I was saying something similar about sv 4 or sv 20 or sv 50 or sv 972... yes you can shoot me down... but after telling you that I have observed this service 20+ times at NEX on 20 different days... taken it 10+ times... observed it equal number of times at HCI... you still want to show you are right... last time you said "today I saw sv 116 has around 40 pax"... u are saying 40 pax as if the bus is bursting. Your statement itself shows that sv 116 rarely gets 40 pax also...
Go on the ground and observe. If not, just shut your mouth. And I will be harsh with you, coz you really irritate me with your nonsensical posts. Sorry others for my language.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi admin, if you can ban people, I suggest you ban mr busanalyser from sgbuses. Show them you are not afraid of banning popular but totally rude and disrespectful people. See the way this was written. This is not the first time. Totally lack of respect. Suggesting I am being bought over. Oh my goodness. Admin, I hope you can do something about this. Cheers.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Admin, please ban mr busanalyser from sgforums. Do not be rude to fellow forumers. Thanks.
What kind of a rivalry is this?
-
Originally posted by SBS3004X:
What kind of rivalry is this?
Actually why is there even a need to have rivalry here? Chillax lah, no need to get so personal with trivial matters such as these, aiyoh...
-
Originally posted by Marvel68:
Actually why is there even a need to have rivalry here? Chillax lah, no need to get so personal with trivial matters such as these, aiyoh...
I agree. Sorry about losing my cool. Hopefully the other person will also not instigate in future. Cheers :)