Originally posted by gekpohboy:I feel that in the past, when bus interchanges, terminals and depots are constructed, the authorities either did not set aside spare parking lots to reserve for future use, or did not allocate bus services to bus interchanges, terminals and depots rationally.
As a result, today, most bus interchanges, terminals and depots are operating near maximum capacity.
Now, when we build new bus interchanges, terminals and depots, we should start to have spare capacity to cater for future use.
Apparently, this is what the LTA is doing. The new Joo Koon Bus Interchange and Changi Business Park Bus Terminal seems to have space reserved for future use.
However, it does not seem that the bus services are allocated bus parking lots rationally yet. But I believe it takes time to master the "art" of assigning parking lots to bus services.
In future, there should not be the problem of lack of capacity, thanks to what we are doing today. :)
I am sure the future generation will thank us for anticipating their future by having spare capacity today - although there is room for improvements.
Last 15 years the populations is under 4.2m,Currently its more than 5.3m.Last 15 years 240 operate full fleet SDs with no hassle,Now with majority DDs.
Originally posted by carbikebus:Last 15 years the populations is under 4.2m,Currently its more than 5.3m.Last 15 years 240 operate full fleet SDs with no hassle,Now with majority DDs.
Good for our economy.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Good for our economy.
Even greater for most foreign workers especially those in and out from JB.They earn 3x the money.My JB colleague just bought a terrace house,A new BMW 1 series and a 800cc motorbike with only 4 years working in Sg.
Bus routes do not make money. MRT does.
The only reason to retain at least one parallel bus route is to act as a backup; in case when there is a MRT disruption.
Originally posted by sgbuses:Bus routes do not make money. MRT does.
The only reason to retain at least one parallel bus route is to act as a backup; in case when there is a MRT disruption.
True,The heavy load sectors like East/West need 2 bus service.
Revived, again.
Routes impacted along DTL2 (2015): 66, 67, 171, 700, (possibly) 961; 170 set to be preserved
Routes of contention along EWL-Tuas (2016): 182, 193, 254
Routes of contention along DTL3 (2017): (a little) 61, 65, 66
Originally posted by AJQZC:Revived, again.
Routes impacted along DTL2 (2015): 66, 67, 171, 700, (possibly) 961; 170 set to be preserved
Routes of contention along EWL-Tuas (2016): 182, 193, 254
Routes of contention along DTL3 (2017): (a little) 61, 65, 66
700 should just swap routes with 960 from Whitley Road to Bras Basah Road.
In future expect more feeders and short distance trunk with the introduction of three doors DDs.Mid to long distance trunk is almost as impossible.The only long distance bus service is those like 513 type.
And the proposed svc 68 is only 17-18km including loop i predict.
Originally posted by carbikebus:In future expect more feeders and short distance trunk with the introduction of three doors DDs.Mid to long distance trunk is almost as impossible.The only long distance bus service is those like 513 type.
Don't think they will cut the current long trunk routes. People will complain.
But that means more hassle because of more time wasted for transfers.
Originally posted by vicamour:Don't think they will cut the current long trunk routes. People will complain.
But that means more hassle because of more time wasted for transfers.
Maybe yes or no..If they want to go for quota i think svc like 14,51,66 and 67 will have 2 portion.
Originally posted by carbikebus:Maybe yes or no..If they want to go for quota i think svc like 14,51,66 and 67 will have 2 portion.
Probably 61 should be the one to be cut. Too long and very windy in many sections of the route.
They need to spees up lor...
The Bukit Timah Rd svcs REALLY can ply expy one... Why would you still need so many svcs jamming up that one road when the MRT is alr in place, and some svcs are not even getting demand? And it's also not in the interest of long-distance commuters...
Originally posted by SMB128B:They need to spees up lor...
The Bukit Timah Rd svcs REALLY can ply expy one... Why would you still need so many svcs jamming up that one road when the MRT is alr in place, and some svcs are not even getting demand? And it's also not in the interest of long-distance commuters...
The issues are that: a detour via Eng Neo Ave is too windy, a right turn from eastbound PIE to Adam Rd is impossible, and turning at Whitley Rd could mean skipping too many bus stops.
Had the exit at Adam Rd been bidirectional, it would have been easy to simply redirect 700 to Adam Rd, then cut 171 after Upp Bt Timah Rd.
Given their route length, 66 or 67 can consider some form of express if they are not going to be split / shortened.
Originally posted by AJQZC:The issues are that: a detour via Eng Neo Ave is too windy, a right turn from eastbound PIE to Adam Rd is impossible, and turning at Whitley Rd could mean skipping too many bus stops.
Had the exit at Adam Rd been bidirectional, it would have been easy to simply redirect 700 to Adam Rd, then cut 171 after Upp Bt Timah Rd.
Given their route length, 66 or 67 can consider some form of express if they are not going to be split / shortened.
problem is that it is difficult to make certain services express along bukit timah road as there are still paxes boarding/alighting at each bus stop..
so which service can skip bukit timah road?
the MRT there does not even go to clementi/bukit batok...
Originally posted by AJQZC:Revived, again.
Routes impacted along DTL2 (2015): 66, 67, 171, 700, (possibly) 961; 170 set to be preserved
Routes of contention along EWL-Tuas (2016): 182, 193, 254
Routes of contention along DTL3 (2017): (a little) 61, 65, 66
I would add 960 as well.
254 won't be impacted at all as along the route it does not meet the EWL Extension. 192/193 will meet at certain points and will act as short feeders as Tuas is a huge area
+ 182 is there that does not cover a huge chunk of new Tuas south extension. There maybe a need for service there.
Originally posted by lemon1974:problem is that it is difficult to make certain services express along bukit timah road as there are still paxes boarding/alighting at each bus stop..
so which service can skip bukit timah road?
the MRT there does not even go to clementi/bukit batok...
I dont think it is fair to make buses stay in BTR just becoz a few pax boards it. As I could see most 66, 67 and 171 are running almost empty ever since DTL2 was a thing.
I think these deserve a skip from the adverse conditions of BTR. In fact we are doing the majority at other sectors a justice with faster arrival and noticeably more reliable headways.
I mean, KMB svc 40 had pax in Shum Shui Po too. But the move to make it express still did it good didnt it?