Bring back the era of express bus services!
-
Operate within interval of 12-18 mins during peak hours and 20-27 mins for off peak.
503:Taman Jurong to Lor 1 Geylang
504:Sengkang to Suntec City(Loop)
505:Serangoon Central to Bt Merah
507:Kent Ridge to Rochor Ter
513 to run full day
-
Do you think the demand can be sustained, especially during off-peak periods?
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Operate within interval of 12-18 mins during peak hours and 20-27 mins for off peak.
503:Taman Jurong to Lor 1 Geylang
504:Sengkang to Suntec City(Loop)
505:Serangoon Central to Bt Merah
507:Kent Ridge to Rochor Ter
513 to run full day
504 is needed badly... Hopefully can extend to RWS or even Bukit Merah.
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
Do you think the demand can be sustained, especially during off-peak periods?
521
963 963E521 demand is way too low, charging basic fare on express route
Rapid 700
700 ?this is a rapid bus service not a express service.
imo only 502 and 506. unique routes and faster travelling. should 502 to extend to Sengkang via KPE and MCE?
-
Frankly speaking, with due respect to all here, I believe this has been eradicated by the introduction of MRT and the vast expansion of MRT. There will be one MRT station within 500 metres of the homes for every 8 out of 10 residents in yr 2022. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Frankly speaking, with due respect to all here, I believe this has been eradicated by the introduction of MRT and the vast expansion of MRT. There will be one MRT station within 500 metres of the homes for every 8 out of 10 residents in yr 2022. Cheers.
...
our MRT cannot support the current 5.3m. by 2020, 5.8m or 6m already. BTW 2030, 6.9m ...
Express buses or Fast-Forward services over MRT
-
Thanks bro,At least you look deep into it..Simply cant force ppl to squeeze into MRT
-
Yes, we need express bus routes. They will do a great deal in improving our public transport connectivity and attractiveness.
However, the current express bus routes are those that ply along express-ways and call at every bus stop. We need express bus routes that are truly express - calling at only selected critical bus stops. Otherwise, they are really no different than long trunk bus routes.
I have suggested this before at the route suggestions thread, but apparently it has been ignored.
Basically, express bus routes should be like MRT lines. Running long distances but only call at critical bus stops, for people to transfer to/from their local bus routes. This will ensure coverage, efficiency and profitability.Hi. I would like to suggest a slight re-routing of express bus route 502, at Jurong. The purpose of this is to enhance the express bus connection in Jurong, while improve the express feature of this express bus route.
Before I go on writing the re-routed route, let me list down the major bus stops in Jurong, which this re-routed route would only serve.
The intention is for people to take a feeder or trunk bus from their houses to a major bus stop, then transfer to this express bus route.
- Major bus stops in Jurong:
- #28641 and #28649 - JE N2
- #28451 and #28459 - JE N3
- #28381 and #28389 - JW N5 & N4
- #28091 and #28099 - JW Taman Jurong & Boon Lay
- #21241 and #21249 - JW Boon Lay
- #21421 and #21429 - JW Boon Lay
- #22441 and #22449 - JW N8, Gek Poh & Bulim
- #22341 and #22349 - JW N7
- #27301 and #27309 - JW N9, St62, St71, N6
Now, the route. Actually, the bus can go anywhere. Just make sure it calls at the above nine pairs of bus stop.- Soon Lee Depot
- Soon Lee Road
- Soon Lee Drive
- Pioneer Road North
- Jurong West Avenue 5
- Jurong West Street 71
- Jurong West Avenue 4
- Jurong West Street 64
- Jurong West Central 1
- Boon Lay Avenue
- Corporation Road
- Boon Lay Way
- Jurong West Street 51
- Jurong West Avenue 1
- Jurong East Avenue 1
- Toh Guan Road
- Pan Island Expressway
- ...
- ...
Personally, I feel that this is quite a good amendment. It enhances the express bus connection in Jurong residential areas.However, although it is better than the current routing, there may still be room for further improvement. -
-deleted-
-
Originally posted by SMB145B:
521
963 963E521 demand is way too low, charging basic fare on express route
Rapid 700
700 ?this is a rapid bus service not a express service.
imo only 502 and 506. unique routes and faster travelling. should 502 to extend to Sengkang via KPE and MCE?
963E works because the demand on 963 is so excessive that I could skip stops and still fill up a bus, even with a higher fare of 60¢ more.
If Jurong East and Jurong West ain't such massive estates, 502 would have flopped. But it has a time-advantage over the MRT. Same reason why CT8 flourished, but not CT18 or 518. Indeed, if I could get to Chinatown just 10 minutes slower for around 60¢ less, why not? Gets me half a cup of coffee!
The Singaporean commuter is willing to part with next to nothing for a faster ride. That's the reason why trunk routes help to keep cost pressures down while improving connectivity. MRT fills in as a mode for efficient long-distance travel; we just need effort to keep the systems running well and improve capacity on these lines.
-
Hmm a case of too many unhealthy competition..What do the LTA got to lose?Everything will be owned by them so why not try?
-
They "lose" taxpayers' money...
-
Kwang kwang kwang
-
Take HK for example. Their bus operations should cover the cost, right? I went on a 31-km journey from Stanley to Kwai Fong MTR, entirely by buses. Two trips. Rt 6, then transferring to Rt 930 at Admiralty. I reached my destination in exactly an hour's time. The fare is HK$23.9, or S$4.18.
Travelling that same distance in Singapore would only cost you S$1.93. Are you willing to pay more than double for express bus services? Maybe, the Government should shield us from this ridiculous pricing. But I have no doubt then that the burden of this difference between revenue and cost will be borned squarely by taxpayers.
-
Or KMB' newest rt.290/290A
http://www.kmb.hk/tc/
-
Don't read too much into the stellar performance of 290/290A. The introductory fare for the inaugurating year helps the route to position itself as a good substitute for other Tsuen Wan to Kwun Tong routes. The real test comes after the full fare is reinstated, when passengers who aren't travelling to TKO and Sau Mau Ping gravitate towards existing routes between Tsuen Wan and Kwun Tong.
-
Off peak, express buses are not revenue friendly to operator or fare friendly to commuter... unless semi express trunk routes, eg 5, 48, 59, 966
If one notice, there are lotsa empty buses running around, 87 966 during off peak at super frequencies, even better than london's 10,73,390
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
Don't read too much into the stellar performance of 290/290A. The introductory fare for the inaugurating year helps the route to position itself as a good substitute for other Tsuen Wan to Kwun Tong routes. The real test comes after the full fare is reinstated, when passengers who aren't travelling to TKO and Sau Mau Ping gravitate towards pre-existing routes between Tsuen Wan and Kwun Tong.
Yah much hype...
Low ridership bus routes in HK are adjusted,KMB 33A,37, NW26...
-
Shouldnt public transport purpose is to serve public and profit is secondary?
-
Efficient use of resources should be the order of the day...
Mindless pumping in of buses to appease citizens as what LTA is doing now
1, waste diesel
2. pollute environment
3. Create secondary problems
a) parking at interchange/Terminal eg Jurong East
b) bunching esp 966 off peak
c) Scarce resources not put to good use,
i)over insistent of 10min headway for 63M,120,121, etc...
ii) deployment of DDs for 41,43M,49 -
Originally posted by Acx1688:
Off peak, express buses are not revenue friendly to operator or fare friendly to commuter... unless semi express trunk routes, eg 5, 48, 59, 966
If one notice, there are lotsa empty buses running around, 87 966 during off peak at super frequencies, even better than london's 10,73,390
At least they should make it run full day on WEEKENDS...
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
Don't read too much into the stellar performance of 290/290A. The introductory fare for the inaugurating year helps the route to position itself as a good substitute for other Tsuen Wan to Kwun Tong routes. The real test comes after the full fare is reinstated, when passengers who aren't travelling to TKO and Sau Mau Ping gravitate towards existing routes between Tsuen Wan and Kwun Tong.
One year is sufficient to sway the TKO and mountain pax into taking 290/A direct instead of taking train or changing buses at KT... especially comsidering how 290 isnt that bad a route at least to Hang Hau/Po Lam residents...
And very little ppl take 290/A to places outside of the aforementioned two places i.e. Wong Tai Sin etc. Coz there is alr a cheaper and faster 38/40/42C... So not really affected
Anyways TKO residents have been ferociously fighting for this 將�線 for years... Now that they got what they wanted (they even got past the "use TKO resources to benefit KT" obstacle), surely 290 pax will remain even when fares return to HKD10.7...
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
One year is sufficient to sway the TKO and mountain pax into taking 290/A direct instead of taking train or changing buses at KT... especially comsidering how 290 isnt that bad a route at least to Hang Hau/Po Lam residents...
And very little ppl take 290/A to places outside of the aforementioned two places i.e. Wong Tai Sin etc. Coz there is alr a cheaper and faster 38/40/42C... So not really affected
Anyways TKO residents have been ferociously fighting for this 將�線 for years... Now that they got what they wanted (they even got past the "use TKO resources to benefit KT" obstacle), surely 290 pax will remain even when fares return to HKD10.7...
It already exists...it's called 188R and 963R. Personally I do use it on occasions where I am late for appointments, even though I am not headed for RWS.
And 290/290A is slower than the MTR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYNIjeI83MA
The route is designed more for point to point travel and as a means of convenience of not having to change trains.
-
Originally posted by Acx1688:
Efficient use of resources should be the order of the day...
Mindless pumping in of buses to appease citizens as what LTA is doing now
1, waste diesel
2. pollute environment
3. Create secondary problems
a) parking at interchange/Terminal eg Jurong East
b) bunching esp 966 off peak
c) Scarce resources not put to good use,
i)over insistent of 10min headway for 63M,120,121, etc...
ii) deployment of DDs for 41,43M,49For express services to be feasible full day, you must be able to read timetables and tell the difference between prefixes/suffixes. This is an example used in Adelaide.
Operating hourly services may be a more feasible plan with a published timetable.
Singapore's bus operations are very simplified due to its frequency. In other countries, it is not unusual for a particular bus duty to operate more than 5 routes in a single day. This is to allow maximization of resources by reducing the layover time at the interchange where bus services are not as frequent.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
One year is sufficient to sway the TKO and mountain pax into taking 290/A direct instead of taking train or changing buses at KT... especially comsidering how 290 isnt that bad a route at least to Hang Hau/Po Lam residents...
And very little ppl take 290/A to places outside of the aforementioned two places i.e. Wong Tai Sin etc. Coz there is alr a cheaper and faster 38/40/42C... So not really affected
Anyways TKO residents have been ferociously fighting for this 將�線 for years... Now that they got what they wanted (they even got past the "use TKO resources to benefit KT" obstacle), surely 290 pax will remain even when fares return to HKD10.7...
While I see that the demand for TKO area is healthy, but pax who are currently using it as an alternative to Rt 40 will likely revert, so there should be a dip. How far? I'm not sure. But I'm just sure there will be a dip.
Currently, the fares of 38/40/42C/290/290A out of Tsuen Wan is not significantly different, but two of them can bring you all the way to TKO.