34M Punggol-Tampines Int(Loop)
Weekdays:0545-0005
Saturdays:0545-0015
Sundays/PHs:0600-0005
Peak hours:10-15 mins Off Peak:15-22 mins
3 DDs 3 SDs 5AM-PM/1S
Originally posted by orange28:As stated, the objective is to better match capacity to demand. Like to understand why you think it would not be practical?
Also this is the route suggestions thread after all, no need to be so rude. Cheers and have a great day ahead.
Hi mr orange28, in my earlier message, in no way was I being rude. Not too sure why you misinterpret as rude.
The correct way to match capacity to demand is change the bus type. Not change the bus route and terminus. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr orange28, in my earlier message, in no way was I being rude. Not too sure why you misinterpret as rude.
The correct way to match capacity to demand is change the bus type. Not change the bus route and terminus. Cheers. Thanks.
Well because you left off at "Not practical at all" without any further elaboration. If you replied as in your last post (quoted) with specific reasons then it would be much better received.
I would say that your view is one view, mine would be another view. Of course changing the bus type is easier than changing bus routes but if there is a consistent trend in loadings then one ought to be able to adapt the routes accordingly. In this case it's a simple "terminal swop" and in my view would not adversely affect too many people travelling on those routes. If you think otherwise, of course feel free to comment accordingly. But at least substantiate your reply so that at least there is something we can discuss about. Regards.
Originally posted by orange28:With the view that the DDs on svc 117 are best utilised along the Yishun Ave 2 - Sembawang sector, I was thinking if the terminus of some routes can be swopped over to better match capacity to demand. So here are some ideas:
1. Swop the terminus of 103 and 117 as such:
- Svc 103: Serangoon - Sembawang (takes over svc 117's route to Sembawang from Yishun MRT)
- Svc 117: Punggol - Yishun (terminates at Yishun like 39, 85)
That way I think it can be justified for the revised 103 to have a boost in frequency and/or capacity, whereas svc 117 can use a full-SD fleet. Also it might facilitate Go-Ahead to take over 117 (so that they can have 2x Punggol-Yishun routes) ...
2. Or alternatively, swop the terminus of 85 and 117 (85 goes further to Sembawang, 117 cut back to Yishun)
Svc 85 already has almost full fleet DD, which would be useful for the future when Canberra estate is more built out. As with above, 117 can use majority SD fleet (if not full-fleet). Also this arrangement results in 2 bus operators at Sembawang and Yishun Interchanges (for now at least).
Thoughts on the above?
First one is good. Would be good if 103 extended to Sembawang and 117 loops around Yishun Town before terminating at Yishun Int
Originally posted by orange28:Well because you left off at "Not practical at all" without any further elaboration. If you replied as in your last post (quoted) with specific reasons then it would be much better received.
I would say that your view is one view, mine would be another view. Of course changing the bus type is easier than changing bus routes but if there is a consistent trend in loadings then one ought to be able to adapt the routes accordingly. In this case it's a simple "terminal swop" and in my view would not adversely affect too many people travelling on those routes. If you think otherwise, of course feel free to comment accordingly. But at least substantiate your reply so that at least there is something we can discuss about. Regards.
"Dismissive" is the word you're looking for...
Not "rude"...
Originally posted by orange28:Well because you left off at "Not practical at all" without any further elaboration. If you replied as in your last post (quoted) with specific reasons then it would be much better received.
I would say that your view is one view, mine would be another view. Of course changing the bus type is easier than changing bus routes but if there is a consistent trend in loadings then one ought to be able to adapt the routes accordingly. In this case it's a simple "terminal swop" and in my view would not adversely affect too many people travelling on those routes. If you think otherwise, of course feel free to comment accordingly. But at least substantiate your reply so that at least there is something we can discuss about. Regards.
Hi mr orange28,
1st between 103 and 117. 103 to terminate at yishun and 117 to terminate at sembawang. 103 comes from Serangoon which is much further. So to terminate at yishun is more appropriate. 117 comes from much nearer Punggol and to just terminate at yishun will further decrease its loading. Distance becomes even shorter than now. I have personally taken 117 many times and saw a fraction of people boarding at khatib and yishun mrt bus stops heading for sembawang. Once Canberra mrt opens on 2019, 117 will pick up more people.
2nd between 85 and 117. See below.
85 picks up most of its loading from Punggol east and Sengkang east and Sengkang mrt (bus stop outside compass one mall, hawker centre) and Sengkang west bto flats and fetch these people to khatib and yishun. It serves a huge portion of punggol-sengkang catchment bringing them to north.
117 just takes the central portion of Punggol people straight out to north Singapore without passing by many HDB flats. So its purpose is to connect Punggol-seletar aerospace to khatib, yishun, Canberra and sembawang HDB flats. It needs to serve a fuller stretch of yishun ave 2, Canberra mrt and sembawang to pass by more HDB flats instead of pre shortening the route to yishun and causing 117 loading to drop much more if only pass by so little flats.
Yes we should be discussing about 117 having even more potential to extend upwards to woodlands or make 117 pass by more flats at sembawang area after passing by sembawang mrt before turning into sembawang interchange. To even talk about 117 cutback to yishun is a bit too premature. Route may become too unsubtainable then. By the way, sembawang mrt area has 962 service to connect to woodlands which is a bit indirect. If 117 can be extended to woodlands via woodlands ave 7, it will do wonders to its loading having served more HDB flats along admiralty mrt and woodlands mrt. It also bridges the gap between sembawang and woodlands. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by SMB128B:"Dismissive" is the word you're looking for...
Not "rude"...
Hi mr SMB128B, sorry for being too dismissive if you think so. Actually I just don't want to keep repeating same old story for 85 and 117. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr orange28,
1st between 103 and 117. 103 to terminate at yishun and 117 to terminate at sembawang. 103 comes from Serangoon which is much further. So to terminate at yishun is more appropriate. 117 comes from much nearer Punggol and to just terminate at yishun will further decrease its loading. Distance becomes even shorter than now. I have personally taken 117 many times and saw a fraction of people boarding at khatib and yishun mrt bus stops heading for sembawang. Once Canberra mrt opens on 2019, 117 will pick up more people.
2nd between 85 and 117. See below.
85 picks up most of its loading from Punggol east and Sengkang east and Sengkang mrt (bus stop outside compass one mall, hawker centre) and Sengkang west bto flats and fetch these people to khatib and yishun. It serves a huge portion of punggol-sengkang catchment bringing them to north.
117 just takes the central portion of Punggol people straight out to north Singapore without passing by many HDB flats. So its purpose is to connect Punggol-seletar aerospace to khatib, yishun, Canberra and sembawang HDB flats. It needs to serve a fuller stretch of yishun ave 2, Canberra mrt and sembawang to pass by more HDB flats instead of pre shortening the route to yishun and causing 117 loading to drop much more if only pass by so little flats.
Yes we should be discussing about 117 having even more potential to extend upwards to woodlands or make 117 pass by more flats at sembawang area after passing by sembawang mrt before turning into sembawang interchange. To even talk about 117 cutback to yishun is a bit too premature. Route may become too unsubtainable then. By the way, sembawang mrt area has 962 service to connect to woodlands which is a bit indirect. If 117 can be extended to woodlands via woodlands ave 7, it will do wonders to its loading having served more HDB flats along admiralty mrt and woodlands mrt. It also bridges the gap between sembawang and woodlands. Cheers. Thanks.
Hi dupdup77,
Thanks for your detailed reply, I'm not quite sure what you mean by same old story but here's my response anyway:
Fundamentally I see svc 117 as being comprised of 3 distinct sections:
In your post you have mentioned multiple times that it is the first section that is likely to receive even more ridership in the future. This I agree with. Though as I see it, the ridership increase is unlikely to spread south of the route past Khatib MRT. Which is why I am suggesting to detach this section of route 117 and attach it to either svcs 103 or 85.
The benefit to attaching it to svc 103 is that it results in very little people being affected (i.e. only those travelling from Punggol to points north of Yishun MRT are affected), while for svc 85 it would be that svc 85 already has a (almost?) full DD fleet so it's already well suited to handle the additional demand in the future.
Specifically on your comments:
On your suggestion to extend svc 117 past Sembawang, my thoughts are that Sembawang - Woodlands is relatively well served by the MRT and svcs 858 and 962 (and 859 does a good job in connecting almost everyone in Sembawang to the MRT) so I don't see the need for an extra service, which would probably cannibalize existing demand anyway.
Once again, thanks for your detailed reply, it's much better to be able to engage in discussions rather than to simply dismiss other people. (Thanks SMB128B, yeah that was probably the more appropriate word!)
82 need to add one more split bus.Currently only 7 buses with 1 crossover from 382 and 84 for Am/pm shift respectively..
Over pampered svc:83,85 & 119.LTA/GA still haven't done much.Wasted resources.
34 need to add one full day and another split duty or introduce 34M to supplement 34 to Tampines full day and can withdrawn 34A.386 another issue.I feel adding 2 more buses is better especially for Pm shift.
I would much appreciate if LTA exchange Svc 17 with Svc 29 between GA and SBST.Wasted fuel off service one big round for 17A.
17:Bedok-Pasir Ris operated by SBST.
29:Changi Village-Tampines Int(Loop) operated by Go Ahead.
Thank You.
Originally posted by orange28:Hi dupdup77,
Thanks for your detailed reply, I'm not quite sure what you mean by same old story but here's my response anyway:
Fundamentally I see svc 117 as being comprised of 3 distinct sections:
- Sembawang to Yishun Ave 2/Khatib MRT
- Yishun/Khatib MRT to Yishun Ave 1
- SAP to Punggol
In your post you have mentioned multiple times that it is the first section that is likely to receive even more ridership in the future. This I agree with. Though as I see it, the ridership increase is unlikely to spread south of the route past Khatib MRT. Which is why I am suggesting to detach this section of route 117 and attach it to either svcs 103 or 85.
The benefit to attaching it to svc 103 is that it results in very little people being affected (i.e. only those travelling from Punggol to points north of Yishun MRT are affected), while for svc 85 it would be that svc 85 already has a (almost?) full DD fleet so it's already well suited to handle the additional demand in the future.
Specifically on your comments:
- Svc 103: I agree that Serangoon is further away than Punggol, but then Canberra Link/Yishun Ave 2 has relatively free-flowing traffic, so reliability of bus operations is unlikely to be adversely affected. (Also Sembawang isn't that far away from Yishun)
- Svc 85: I understand the rationale of svc 85, though my suggested amendment could only boost its ridership up and further justify its full DD fleet!
On your suggestion to extend svc 117 past Sembawang, my thoughts are that Sembawang - Woodlands is relatively well served by the MRT and svcs 858 and 962 (and 859 does a good job in connecting almost everyone in Sembawang to the MRT) so I don't see the need for an extra service, which would probably cannibalize existing demand anyway.
Once again, thanks for your detailed reply, it's much better to be able to engage in discussions rather than to simply dismiss other people. (Thanks SMB128B, yeah that was probably the more appropriate word!)
Hi mr orange28, service 858 and 962 are not that super direct from sembawang to woodlands. If service 117 is extended along sembawang way-woodlands ave 7, it will have increased loading along these stretch with many flats. Note admiralty mrt is also being directly served by 117 if extended. Then all these will have direct connection to seletar aerospace park which might see loading coming in from yr 2019 onwards. It will be much more beneficial than to terminate it at yishun.
If 117 is cut short at yishun, whole distance will be only 16km++. Even service 85 full distance is around 18.5km++. So for me, I don't encourage service 117 to be shortened. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr orange28, service 858 and 962 are not that super direct from sembawang to woodlands. If service 117 is extended along sembawang way-woodlands ave 7, it will have increased loading along these stretch with many flats. Note admiralty mrt is also being directly served by 117 if extended. Then all these will have direct connection to seletar aerospace park which might see loading coming in from yr 2019 onwards. It will be much more beneficial than to terminate it at yishun.
If 117 is cut short at yishun, whole distance will be only 16km++. Even service 85 full distance is around 18.5km++. So for me, I don't encourage service 117 to be shortened. Cheers. Thanks.
My view is that even if you extend svc 117 along Sembawang Way/Wdl Ave 7, any increased loadings from this area would come from the MRT/962/858 which is pretty insignificant. Yes svcs 858/962 are not quite direct but for those who need a quick connection there's the MRT within easy reach. Also from my regular travels I don't observe much people transferring between 962 and 969/965 at Wdl Ave 7 so that supports my view that this extension would not result in any significant loadings.
Also do note that it is faster to go to Yishun via Gambas Ave so people travelling from Woodlands to Yishun (and vice versa) would naturally prefer to take 969/965. And as an endnote, anyone in Woodlands who wants to go to SAP would similarly be better off taking 969/965 to Yishun and then transferring to 103 (or even 168 to Jln Kayu and then 103/117 from there) rather than taking an extended 117. Those in Sembawang can take svc 117 as usual, or if svc 117 is cut short and replaced by svc 85, take 85 to Yishun and transfer accordingly. Regards.
Originally posted by carbikebus:34M Punggol-Tampines Int(Loop)
Weekdays:0545-0005
Saturdays:0545-0015
Sundays/PHs:0600-0005
Peak hours:10-15 mins Off Peak:15-22 mins
3 DDs 3 SDs 5AM-PM/1S
How about stopping at Tampines Concourse Int instead? So Tamp Ave 5>Ave 4 (UOB Tampines/MRT stop) > Ave 7(Library stop) > Direct to Int. Then reverse direction use Tampines Concourse > Ctrl 7 > Ave 7 (opp Library stop) then follow the reverse route back to Punggol?
Originally posted by carbikebus:82 need to add one more split bus.Currently only 7 buses with 1 crossover from 382 and 84 for Am/pm shift respectively..
Over pampered svc:83,85 & 119.LTA/GA still haven't done much.Wasted resources.
34 need to add one full day and another split duty or introduce 34M to supplement 34 to Tampines full day and can withdrawn 34A.386 another issue.I feel adding 2 more buses is better especially for Pm shift.
I know it is a repetition but will be good if LTA merges 82 and 107. Will make both services more useful.
386 should get 2 DDs rather than just adding buses.
34 doing better now with 118 coming in. Before that it was total madness.
Totally agree 83, 85, 119 is such a waste.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:I know it is a repetition but will be good if LTA merges 82 and 107. Will make both services more useful.
386 should get 2 DDs rather than just adding buses.
34 doing better now with 118 coming in. Before that it was total madness.
Totally agree 83, 85, 119 is such a waste.
Most 34 pax take from PGL-TPE and Tampines MRT where 118 doesn't serve.
386 doesnt need DD actually unless it got further extension..Just need more supplement during PM shift.
Originally posted by orange28:My view is that even if you extend svc 117 along Sembawang Way/Wdl Ave 7, any increased loadings from this area would come from the MRT/962/858 which is pretty insignificant. Yes svcs 858/962 are not quite direct but for those who need a quick connection there's the MRT within easy reach. Also from my regular travels I don't observe much people transferring between 962 and 969/965 at Wdl Ave 7 so that supports my view that this extension would not result in any significant loadings.
Also do note that it is faster to go to Yishun via Gambas Ave so people travelling from Woodlands to Yishun (and vice versa) would naturally prefer to take 969/965. And as an endnote, anyone in Woodlands who wants to go to SAP would similarly be better off taking 969/965 to Yishun and then transferring to 103 (or even 168 to Jln Kayu and then 103/117 from there) rather than taking an extended 117. Those in Sembawang can take svc 117 as usual, or if svc 117 is cut short and replaced by svc 85, take 85 to Yishun and transfer accordingly. Regards.
Hi mr orange28, that is because there is no super direct bus from sembawang mrt to woodlands mrt. Cannot always depend on MRT. If 117 is extended, it will have fetched a higher loading.
Your last few statements still hint of a cut-back of 117 route and replaced by 85. When the distance of 117 drops from current 20+km to 16+km and increase of 85 distance from current 18.5+km to 22.5+km, the rationale just does not go too well with.
If 117 is extended, the rationale of people taking bus to yishun to transfer may not be valid all the time too. If a direct service from woodlands to SAP is made available, some loading pattern may change already when traveling time is balanced out due to cut out waiting time for transferring. I understood it may not be a drastic conversion of loading often but there will be a significant change. Don't underestimate the power of DIRECT bus services. Cheers. Thanks.
Amended Svc 119 (integrate with Svc 53M)
Follows 119 route till Hg St 21, then follow 53M route, back to Hg St 21 (calling at b/s Blk 210, Hg St 21 FC, skip b/s Bet Blks 210/211), follow 119 route back to Punggol.
Amended Svc 113 (Hougang St 21 - Serangoon North Ave 1 (loop), via Hg St 11)
Start from Hg St 21, follow current 113 route (via Hg st 11), back to Upp Serangoon Road (Kovan Stn), Simon Rd, Kovan Rd, Flower Rd, Glasgow Rd, Sandilands Rd, Phillips Ave, Yio Chu Kang Rd, Ang Mo Kio Ave 3, Serangoon North Ave 1, Phillips Ave, Chuan Hoe Ave, Parry Ave, Phillips Ave, Glasgow Rd, Richards Pl, Richards Ave, Flower Rd, Kovan Rd, Simon Rd, Upper Serangoon Rd (Kovan Stn) & Hg St 21
Benefits:
1. Connects Serangoon Nth to Kovan (no direct service currently)
2. New coverage area of Kovan private housing to Kovan Stn
3. Better utilisation of 119, eliminate 53M dead milage, with no significant loss in coverage and connection
I know this has probably been posted multiple times, but it's still interesting to connect the two interchange extensions in this way.
Service 27M: Compassvale - Tampines Concourse
https://drive.google.com/open?id=10rQ6zqQ81kBCeZtW2u9BN0o-wkk&usp=sharing
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr orange28, that is because there is no super direct bus from sembawang mrt to woodlands mrt. Cannot always depend on MRT. If 117 is extended, it will have fetched a higher loading.
Your last few statements still hint of a cut-back of 117 route and replaced by 85. When the distance of 117 drops from current 20+km to 16+km and increase of 85 distance from current 18.5+km to 22.5+km, the rationale just does not go too well with.
If 117 is extended, the rationale of people taking bus to yishun to transfer may not be valid all the time too. If a direct service from woodlands to SAP is made available, some loading pattern may change already when traveling time is balanced out due to cut out waiting time for transferring. I understood it may not be a drastic conversion of loading often but there will be a significant change. Don't underestimate the power of DIRECT bus services. Cheers. Thanks.
Hi mr dupdup77,
I don't understand why you think changes to the route distances is an issue? Since my suggestion would make a moderately long service only slightly shorter and another service of similar length slightly longer. But in doing so efficiencies in bus deployment can be achieved, which will outweigh any negative impact on bus service reliability. There are plenty of bus routes that are similarly more than 20 kms each direction for you if you really want to critique on bus route lengths ...
If you ask me to not "underestimate the power of DIRECT bus services" then I must ask you as well to not underestimate the power of TRANSFERS between bus services. Best example is the transfer stop at TPE/Punggol Rd exit. Everyday plenty of people alight and make transfers to bus services there, so it goes to show people are still willing to make transfers. I even dare say that 118 is highly successful because of that transfer stop! Without that transfer stop 118 will not have as high loading as it now enjoys.
My criticism on extending 117 towards Woodlands/Admiralty still stands. Even if 117 gets increased loading, (1) the loading will primarily be confined to that section north of Khatib MRT and (2) the loading will come primarily from existing services (962, 858, the MRT) so therefore you get what is a win-lose scenairo. Hope you can understand my point here. Regards.
Originally posted by orange28:Hi mr dupdup77,
I don't understand why you think changes to the route distances is an issue? Since my suggestion would make a moderately long service only slightly shorter and another service of similar length slightly longer. But in doing so efficiencies in bus deployment can be achieved, which will outweigh any negative impact on bus service reliability. There are plenty of bus routes that are similarly more than 20 kms each direction for you if you really want to critique on bus route lengths ...
If you ask me to not "underestimate the power of DIRECT bus services" then I must ask you as well to not underestimate the power of TRANSFERS between bus services. Best example is the transfer stop at TPE/Punggol Rd exit. Everyday plenty of people alight and make transfers to bus services there, so it goes to show people are still willing to make transfers. I even dare say that 118 is highly successful because of that transfer stop! Without that transfer stop 118 will not have as high loading as it now enjoys.
My criticism on extending 117 towards Woodlands/Admiralty still stands. Even if 117 gets increased loading, (1) the loading will primarily be confined to that section north of Khatib MRT and (2) the loading will come primarily from existing services (962, 858, the MRT) so therefore you get what is a win-lose scenairo. Hope you can understand my point here. Regards.
Hi mr orange28, it is not only about route distance. By cutting off service 117 to terminate at yishun, you have effectively reduced the number of HDB flats it will serve. A very huge distance of route is not serving any flats. This when it reaches the areas where there are flats, you cut it off.
Where route planning is concerned, it needs to pass by more flats. Take for example service 85. In its heydays, service 85 goes on TPE straight after Sengkang east road. It totally skips Sengkang west area. Once the flats along Sengkang west way are built up, service 85 is routed in to serve the flats there and proceed to expressway via Jalan kayu.
My point is that 117 needs to serve more HDB flats. Maybe that is is also why the authorities did not want it to stop at yishun. Thus they plan it to stop at sembawang which is much better choice. Take note when 117 is launched, its objective is Punggol -yishun-sembawang. Nowadays there is a 3rd town when bus services are launched. For example, new service 129, it is tampines-toa payoh-whampoa.
If your thinking is DD must fit into buses with more loading and SD must fit into buses with little loading, you will face with an impractical situation. Meaning you need to keep exchanging a portion of the routes of other services, this will create lots of chaos. Most of the times, you cannot expect a certain size to fit in each bus service for maximization. For example, 83 has full fleet DDs. 82 has 0 DDs. Means the authorities need to extend 83 route to take over 82 route from Punggol road to Serangoon central and 82 just goes towards compassvale street to loop at sengkang int? That will be absurd. But it will achieve your aim of efficiencies in deployment.
As for direct services and transfer, most people will choose direct bus services. That is the purpose why so many people in forums proposed routes for direct connectivity. Only when people see an advantage in reducing time will they seek to transfer. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by array88:I know this has probably been posted multiple times, but it's still interesting to connect the two interchange extensions in this way.
Service 27M: Compassvale - Tampines Concourse
https://drive.google.com/open?id=10rQ6zqQ81kBCeZtW2u9BN0o-wkk&usp=sharing
Hi mr array88, I think better not. Space inside compassvale and tampines concourse interchanges is a premium. Leave the space for other services. Else the interchanges can get jammed up easily and people will again complain! Cheers. Thanks.
Service 263
Ang Mo Kio Interchange - Lentor Loop (Loop)
Via
Ang Mo Kio Ave 3/Ave 4
Ang Mo Kio St 11
Ang Mo Kio Ave 2/Ave5
Yio Chu Kang Road
Lentor Loop/Rd
Yio Chu Kang Rd
Ang Mo Kio Ave 5/Ave 2
Ang Mo Kio St 11
Ang Mo Kio Ave 4/Ave 3
Townlink 265
Ang Mo Kio Interchange - Ang Mo Kio Ave 10/Ang Mo Kio St 63 (Loop)
Via
Ang Mo Kio Ave 8
Ang Mo Kio St 53/St 52
Ang Mo KIo Ave 10/St 54
Ang Mo Kio St 52/St 53
Ang Mo Kio Ave 5/Ave 8
Ang Mo Kio Interchange
Ang Mo Kio Ave 3/Ave 4/Ave 9
Ang Mo Kio St 63/St 64/St 62
Ang Mo Kio Ave 9/Ave 4/Ave 3
Ang Mo Kio Interchange
Townlink 268
Ang Mo Kio Interchange - Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 2/Ang Mo Kio Depot
Via
Ang Mo Kio Ave 3
Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 2
Ang Mo Kio Ave 5
Ang Mo Kio Industrial Park 2
Ang Mo Kio Ave 3
Ang Mo Kio Interchange
Ang Mo Kio Ave 3/Ave 4/Ave 9
Ang Mo Kio St 62/St 64/St 63
Ang Mo Kio Ave 9/Ave 4/Ave 3
Ang Mo Kio Interchange
Enhance Svc 811A
Svc 811A
Yishun Interchange - Sembawang Rd/Yishun St 81 (Loop)
via
Yishun Ave 9/Ave 7
Sembawang Rd
Yishun Ave 5/Ave 2/Ave 3
Yishun Ring Road
Yishun Ave 4
Yishun St 81
Yishun Ave 4
Yishun Ring Road
Yishun Ave 3/Ave 2
Yishun Central
Yishun Interchange
- Svc 811P will be discontinued to the enhancement of Svc 811A. With this, passengers going towards St 81 will not have to wait long for Svc 811
Express 501
Punggol Int - Soon Lee Depot
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vXtjB526ea-04CpsMFAU0zZE8Io&usp=sharing
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr orange28, it is not only about route distance. By cutting off service 117 to terminate at yishun, you have effectively reduced the number of HDB flats it will serve. A very huge distance of route is not serving any flats. This when it reaches the areas where there are flats, you cut it off.
Where route planning is concerned, it needs to pass by more flats. Take for example service 85. In its heydays, service 85 goes on TPE straight after Sengkang east road. It totally skips Sengkang west area. Once the flats along Sengkang west way are built up, service 85 is routed in to serve the flats there and proceed to expressway via Jalan kayu.
My point is that 117 needs to serve more HDB flats. Maybe that is is also why the authorities did not want it to stop at yishun. Thus they plan it to stop at sembawang which is much better choice. Take note when 117 is launched, its objective is Punggol -yishun-sembawang. Nowadays there is a 3rd town when bus services are launched. For example, new service 129, it is tampines-toa payoh-whampoa.
If your thinking is DD must fit into buses with more loading and SD must fit into buses with little loading, you will face with an impractical situation. Meaning you need to keep exchanging a portion of the routes of other services, this will create lots of chaos. Most of the times, you cannot expect a certain size to fit in each bus service for maximization. For example, 83 has full fleet DDs. 82 has 0 DDs. Means the authorities need to extend 83 route to take over 82 route from Punggol road to Serangoon central and 82 just goes towards compassvale street to loop at sengkang int? That will be absurd. But it will achieve your aim of efficiencies in deployment.
As for direct services and transfer, most people will choose direct bus services. That is the purpose why so many people in forums proposed routes for direct connectivity. Only when people see an advantage in reducing time will they seek to transfer. Cheers. Thanks.
As a matter of fact, I think DDs on the existing 82 route would make more sense than DDs on the existing 83 route so yes, I would actually think that such a swop would be a good idea, in terms of maximizing efficiency of bus capacities.
If you were to mention about the "third town" argument, I can argue that svc 117 is best suited to be a Yishun - SAP - Punggol service, so there's that.
I can see where you are coming at with the svc 85 example though I want to point out a big difference, and that is that the Sengkang West portion of svc 85 is in the middle of its route, whereas the Sembawang portion of svc 117 is at one end of its route. So getting svc 85 to serve Sengkang West is a good idea because it "sort of" has to pass by around that area anyway, whereas getting svc 117 to serve Sembawang is in a sense extending that route northwards from Yishun. Here I argue that there are other services that can take the place of this northwards extension to Sembawang so as to maximise bus capacity efficiencies.
If people are going to SAP they will be able to get there, whether or not there is a direct bus service. Doesn't mean that if there is no direct bus means that they will not be able to travel to SAP, they can always transfer at a suitable transfer point (e.g. Yishun MRT). I enjoyed this discussion so far, and hope you can understand my perspectives. Regards.