Service 3 is the most notorious,Winding through Pasir Ris like mad cow.
Service 28 winding through Tampines Estates.
I find Service 30 extremely winding from West Coast to Boon Lay
...
Well, there's always 123 and 173. ~~
858. its been suggested umpteen times that it should be split in the interests of all. 858 is a fine example of a route trying to serve too many types of commuting patterns at once, resulting in resource wastage.
Originally posted by carbikebus:Service 3 is the most notorious,Winding through Pasir Ris like mad cow.
Service 28 winding through Tampines Estates.
28 is not winding. The route is made by purpose or how do you expect this part of Tampines Estate to connect to SAFRA, Bedok and even Tampines CC.
3 is winding in Punggol, Pasir Ris and Tampines.
But its ok la... people get trunk service. For instance those at st 21 in Pasir Ris get direct service to TPE stop as well as Tampines. Not bad.
Services that are winding IMO:
14, 51, 61, 67 - so long and winding.
hmm....... 136?
In the old days, routes were designed to be long and winding for maximum catchment.
LTA claims they will be in greater control of route planning when GCM/BCM begins. Let's see if they have the courage to try and revamp the route network.
Originally posted by FireIce:hmm....... 136?
136 serves some bus stops in Sengkang which no other bus service serves.
Even if 858 is splited, the direct link from Sembawang to Changi Airport will be lost. It would be a more wasted usage of resources to make a new route from Sembawang just for that, unless you wanna take 859 and transfer to 858 at Sembawang Rd. That would mean heavier demand for the service once Canberra is up
If you want to split 858 then you have to go through Woodlands and Marsiling,Yishun and resume to normal routes.Sembawang sectors covered by a new service cover the delete sectors,Yishun and to Airport skipping Jln Kayu to Airport.Both win win also.Then svc 858 can reduce 4-5 buses instead.
Originally posted by carbikebus:Service 3 is the most notorious,Winding through Pasir Ris like mad cow.
Service 28 winding through Tampines Estates.
One has to rmb why 28 is routed this way from the fact that it used to be a Inter-town route like 18 and 69 to Bedok
Originally posted by Guides anyone?:One has to rmb why 28 is routed this way from the fact that it used to be a Inter-town route like 18 and 69 to Bedok
Then should have a new service cover that part if LTA want people to leave their vehicle at home.
The reason why they want to split certain trunk routes is to enhance the runtime reliability and reduce winding.
Express 518 another winding route in Pasir Ris
98 is very winding. It goes one big round around Jurong East/West Avenue 1, before coming to Taman Jurong, and then after that still have to go around Jurong industrial estate to Jurong Port.
Express services serves areas into city. The new ones are mainly peak hour services. 506 is an exception. Not all are winding.
Originally posted by carbikebus:The reason why they want to split certain trunk routes is to enhance the runtime reliability and reduce winding.
Express 518 another winding route in Pasir Ris
Same for Express 502 in Jurong West/Jurong East, a winding service, even during off-peak buses can bunch returning to Jurong West/SLBP, in extreme cases, 2 DDs can arrive together and the next bus is like 25mins away
Buses are always crowded during peak hours and hardly available. Waiting time about 10-15 mins
should amend all the TPY routes to be same as the route in 1980s...
TPY interchange, then lor 2, lor 1A, lor 1, lor 2, lor 3, lor 4, lor 5, lor 4, lor 6 , lor 7 , lor 6, before turning to braddell road...
remember sv145/146 go round lor 1 as well..
If 858 is amended like that, how are the people working in the Woodlands Industrial sector supposed to go to Sembawang? There are also stops where only 858 serves and a huge group of people going to Chong Pang from Sembawang Stn. 858 is actually doing well for now with many passengers alighting & boarding every now and then. Do not break up the route yet until Canberra is up which I believe there would be increasing demand to go to places
Deleted
Besides lengthy trunk buses...
I am pretty surpised that no one actually complained that the NightRider services operated by TIBS/SMRT are very lengthy ways for late night travellers to get home. This is in contrast to the Nite Owl services run by its rival SBS Transit, which went through a reorganization on 22 Dec 2006 to reduce the travel time between the CBD and residential areas?
- Nite Owl 1N: Uses CTE to provide a faster connection between the city and Ang Mo Kio/Yishun, as opposed to the route taken by former Nite Owl 162M (via Thomson Rd).
- Nite Owl 2N: Uses ECP to provide a faster connection between the city and Bedok Reservoir/Tampines, as opposed to the route taken by former Nite Owl 65M (via MacPherson Est & Ubi)
- Nite Owl 3N: Uses Bt Timah Rd to provide a faster connection between the city and Bukit Batok/Choa Chu Kang. Former Nite Owl 181M also used Stevens Rd, Whitley Rd & BKE/PIE (following Service 190) before becoming Nite Owl 3N.
- Nite Owl 4N: Uses ECP to provide a faster connection between the city and Marine Parade/Bedok/Simei/Pasir Ris, as opposed to the route taken by former Nite Owl 16M (via Stadium & Kallang Airport Est)
- Nite Owl 5N: Uses Bt Timah Rd to provide a faster connection between the city and Clementi/Jurong East/Jurong West, as opposed to the route taken by former Nite Owl 174M (via Bt Timah Rd). Granted, the Farrer Rd/Holland Rd leg of Nite Owl 5N can be truncated if demand doesn't warrant.
- Nite Owl 6N: Uses CTE to provide a faster connection between the city and Hougang/Sengkang/Punggol. Former Nite Owl 89M also used the CTE.
All these in contrast to the NRs, which uses lengthy ways to get to the end:
- NightRider NR1: Winds around Toa Payoh & Bishan before proceeding to Ang Mo Kio/Yishun. Can be cutback to Bishan in the future if LTA were to integrate night buses of both operators.
- NightRiders NR2/NR3: These two NRs are probably the faster ones around, using a similar route to Service 190 (Stevens Rd, BKE/PIE) to proceed to Bukit Panjang and Woodlands respectively.
- NightRider NR5: Winds around Bukit Merah & Queenstown before proceeding to Clementi/Jurong East/Jurong West. Can be cutback to Queenstown in the future if LTA were to integrate night buses of both operators.
- NightRider NR6: Winds around Boon Keng/Potong Pasir before proceeding to Serangoon/Hougang/Sengkang. Can be integrated with Nite Owl 6N in the future if the Boon Keng/Potong Pasir sectors do not have sufficient demand.
- NightRider NR7: Winds around Geylang before proceeding to Bedok Reservoir/Bedok/Simei/Tampines/Pasir Ris. Can be integrated with Nite Owls 2N and 4N in the future.
- NightRider NR8: Despite not using the expressway, I would say NR8 is a less winding NR compared to the other NRs mentioned above (except NR2/NR3). It could be kept or merged with Nite Owl 3N.
Originally posted by SBS7557R:As mentioned before, the lengthiness of Services 14, 51 & 67 are all thanks to route integrations here and there from the past.
Now, we could bring back the "merged away" services then in their old form if splitting were to occur.
Service 14
Initially a route between Bedok and Bukit Merah after 20 Jan 1991, it was rerouted and diverted to Clementi after an integration with the old Service 92 on 23 May 1993, which resulted in its lengthiness.
To undo the lengthiness, we could bring back the old Service 92, but will a route running between Clementi and PLAB in the modern age be considered long winding? Yes it would, and no one will probably take the bus from Clementi all the way to PLAB anyway. Thus, the proposed "old 92" will probably end at Marina Centre instead in the modern age.
Service 51
Initially a route between Eunos and Labrador since initial introduction, it was extended in the east to Hougang after an integration with the old Service 54 on 12 Mar 1987, and later extended in the west to Jurong East after an integration with the old Service 192.
To undo the lengthiness, we could bring back both the old Services 54 and 192. Since South Canal Rd Ter and Jurong Int were both closed for good, a proposal of the old Service 192 will be between Jurong East and New Bridge Rd. The question now lies in whether the old Service 54 should be brought back as well as a route between Hougang Central and Eunos, or just keep Service 51 as Hougang Central to Labrador.
Service 61
Also mentioned before, the route length of Service 61 was originally lengthy on its own without integrating with any bus services. The easiest way to split will be like what carbikebus mentioned, New Bridge Rd Ter once again. Since the terminal is relocating soon, it's probably a good opportunity to implement the split.
Service 67
The western leg between Choa Chu Kang and Little India is probably the trickier part, as that is an original segment of Service 67. However, the eastern part in Geylang, Eunos and Bedok, as mentioned before, are attributed to an integration with the old Service 4 on 23 May 1993. Current Service 21 also became lengthier as a result, taking over the St. Michael's leg of the old Service 4.
To undo the lengthiness, will you want to impact both Services 21 and 67, or just Service 67? Allowing Service 67 go back to its old way of taking the direct PIE route to Little India/Boon Keng is probably a good tactic in competing with the upcoming DTL 3 in any way and make it less winding. A win-win situation I believe. This is in contrast to proposals by others to cut it back to Bedok, which does not exactly solve the problem.
If the old Service 4 between Tampines Int and St. Michael's Ter were to be reinstated or slightly altered and then implemented, will it be long-winded?
Hi mr sbs7557R, just keep 14, 51, 61, 67 as they are currently now. No need to return to the past. When introduce new bus services from now onwards, no need plan long routes. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by gekpohboy:98 is very winding. It goes one big round around Jurong East/West Avenue 1, before coming to Taman Jurong, and then after that still have to go around Jurong industrial estate to Jurong Port.
98's passenger market is basically split into two:
- between Jurong East and Lakeside MRT
- between Lakeside MRT and Jurong Port
The workers of Jurong Port generally takes 98 from Lakeside MRT rather than Jurong East, so they won't need to "go one big round around Jurong East/West Ave 1". It's just two more stations along the EWL after Jurong East, so the impact is really minimal.
Commuters who take 98 from Jurong East are generally not heading to Jurong Port, but the residential blocks along Jurong East/West Ave 1. For the residential blocks along Jurong East Ave 1 (east of Jurong Town Hall Rd), 98 is a faster option in comparison to 333, which has to detour around Toh Guan Rd first. For the residential blocks east of Jurong Town Hall Rd, 334 is certainly a faster option, but the time difference in comparison to that of between 98 and 333 is less significant, so I believe they choose between 98 and 334 based on which arrives first in the interchange.