Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr orange28, what about hougang bus interchange to hougang ave 1/Lorong ah soo? No bus service? Seldom plan this way. Hougang ave 1 being a part of hougang should have at least a direct connection. 62 and 82 are just passing through hougang town.
Moreover, the authorities plan 62 and 82 not to meet each other after coming out of Punggol when passing by hougang except for 3 stops at hougang ave 10 and 1 stop at hougang ave 2. But you purposely make them meet at hougang ave 1 and Lorong ah soo as well? Duplicate too much. Cheers. Thanks.
Did you know there's also a pair of bus stop at Hougang Ave 10 that serve Hougang MRT? I believe most people going to Hougang Ave 1 and Lor Ah Soo from Hougang MRT would be taking 62 there, instead of the super long and winding 113 from interchange.
So 62 and 82 actually serves Hougang MRT instead of "just passing through Hougang town". People who need to go to Ave 1 from bus interchange can walk there, and if they really don't want to walk, it's a easy transfer.
For your second paragraph, just because two services duplicate each other along a short sector for a few pairs of bus stops, do not make them "duplicate too much" if they serve distinctly different purposes. Just like how 3 and 83 seem to duplicate all the way in Punggol, but you always argue that 3 is for Pasir Ris-bound pax and 83 is for Sengkang-bound.
In AJQZC's suggestion, the amended 82 and 62 do share the same route along Hougang Ave 1 and Lor Ah Soo, but 62 is for direct connection to Hougang MRT/town centre and Paya Lebar Rd/Aljunied Rd, and 82 is for connection to Kovan MRT and Serangoon MRT. So I don't find anything wrong with that.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr AJQZC, 82M cannot due to different bus service providers. 82 is a GA bus service. No longer sbs transit. Cheers. Thanks.
Under GCM, route planning is done by LTA instead of PTOs. Even 201 could cover the lost sectors of 189 when the former is under SBST and the latter is SMRT.
Originally posted by array88:Under GCM, route planning is done by LTA instead of PTOs. Even 201 could cover the lost sectors of 189 when the former is under SBST and the latter is SMRT.
Hi mr array88, yes I know. Think you got it mixed up if you use 189 and 201 reasoning. I mean the starting interchange. Thus Go Ahead service 82 starts from Punggol int and 82M (subsidiary of 82) cannot start from hougang int which is controlled by sbs transit. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by array88:Did you know there's also a pair of bus stop at Hougang Ave 10 that serve Hougang MRT? I believe most people going to Hougang Ave 1 and Lor Ah Soo from Hougang MRT would be taking 62 there, instead of the super long and winding 113 from interchange.
So 62 and 82 actually serves Hougang MRT instead of "just passing through Hougang town". People who need to go to Ave 1 from bus interchange can walk there, and if they really don't want to walk, it's a easy transfer.
For your second paragraph, just because two services duplicate each other along a short sector for a few pairs of bus stops, do not make them "duplicate too much" if they serve distinctly different purposes. Just like how 3 and 83 seem to duplicate all the way in Punggol, but you always argue that 3 is for Pasir Ris-bound pax and 83 is for Sengkang-bound.
In AJQZC's suggestion, the amended 82 and 62 do share the same route along Hougang Ave 1 and Lor Ah Soo, but 62 is for direct connection to Hougang MRT/town centre and Paya Lebar Rd/Aljunied Rd, and 82 is for connection to Kovan MRT and Serangoon MRT. So I don't find anything wrong with that.
Hi mr array88, how could I not have known that there is a pair of bus stops at hougang ave 10 that serves hougang int? I even know the bus-stop at hougang ave 6 is within walking distance to hougang mrt. I also took 62 and 82 much more frequently than you.
Actually their objective is to remove 113. But I see no reason to do that. We need more bus services due to growing population and not to keep consolidating 2 different bus services. By consolidating, there will definitely be more traveling time for those who take it from a further place. That is why you see bus services of various alphabets A, B, M behind parent number popping out. More traveling time will throw off bus commuters and ultimately push them to use MRT.
When I write 62 and 82 are passing by hougang town, I mean these 2 services are passing through various aspects of hougang town without coming out of hougang interchange. If amended 82 in this way, 62 and 82 will bear too much similarities passing by hougang ave 8, hougang ave 6, hougang ave 10, hougang ave 2, hougang ave 1 and Lorong ah soo. This is in contrary to the initial objectives of making the 2 services distinct in passing by hougang estate except for duplication at road nearest hougang mrt. Duplicate 6 roads is different from just the 2 roads you mention.
Even if you successfully removed 113 by replacing it with an amended 82, there will come another time a few months later when another guy will say the amended 82 duplicates quite a bit with 62. Then that guy will propose another number for a bus service and try to remove 82. So when will it all end? It just does not work out this way.
Your logic of keep using 3 and 83 as an explanation also mean you are not convinced. What about tons of services duplicating one another along tampines ave 2 and tampines ave 7??? For buses coming out of an interchange, 5-6 services all are being appointed to go straight forward. In the forward direction, only 3 major roads. Central, drive or field. Various services split at different junctions and left only 3, 83, 85 forward.
You cannot do much since they need use 1 or 2 roads to come out. 43, 117, 118 these 3 services also duplicate one other when coming out from the back direction of punggol int. They duplicate until Punggol way. Anything wrong with that? Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by orange28:Hi Mr dupdup77, this is not my route suggestion so not sure why you are directing your comments to me!
Anyway, I can accept your point about ensuring a direct bus connection from Hougang Int to Hougang Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo, though from my understanding not many people ride svc 113 from Hougang Int all the way to Hougang Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo. Are they already currently riding svc 62 instead? LTA would probably know this better than you and me ...
Also this suggestion for svc 82 cannot be considered to be duplicating too much of svc 62. Otherwise by your standards (and as I pointed out earlier) svcs 969 and 965 are also highly duplicative as well. Would you agree that svcs 969 and 965 are also highly duplicative?
Hi mr orange28, why not considered duplicating??? Duplicate along hougang ave 8, hougang ave 6, hougang ave 10, hougang ave 2, then separate, meet again at hougang ave 1, Lorong ah soo. Too much la. Cheers. Thanks.
Duplicate or what its for the benefit of residents mah,Then you all want just one service serving those crowds ah?Later you all also kpkb why LTA dont do this and that.
S68
Direction 1 Loyang Depot--Tampines Int
Loyang Depot
Loyang Way-Express
PSR Dr 2
PSR St 21
PSR Dr 4
PSR Dr 3
PSR Ris Dr 8
PSR Dr 1
Elias Rd
PSR St 71,exit follow 359
PSR Dr 1-Express
PSR Dr 12
Tampines Ave 10
TAM Ave 11-4 new stops
TAM Ave 9
TAM Concourse
TAM Ctrl 1-Express
Tampines Int
Direction 2 Tampines Int--Loyang Depot
Tampines Int
TAM Ctrl 1-Express
TAM Concourse
TAM Ave 9
TAM Ave 11-4 new stops
TAM Ave 10
PSR Dr 12
PSR Dr 1
PSR Dr 10
PSR St 71
Elias Rd
PSR Dr 8
PSR Dr 3
PSR Dr 4
PSR St 21
PSR Dr 2
Loyang Way
Loyang Depot
Supplement Svc 3
Dir 1:Weekdays:0535-2345 Saturdays:0535-2345 Sundays/PHs:0545-2345
Dir 2:Weekdays:0540-2355 Saturdays:0540-2355 Sundays/PHs:0550-2355
Fleets:5 Citaros 4 B9TLs
Weekdays:7 AM-PM / 2 SS
Saturdays:7 AM-PM / 2 TQ
Sundays/PHs:7 AM-PM / 1 TQ
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr array88, yes I know. Think you got it mixed up if you use 189 and 201 reasoning. I mean the starting interchange. Thus Go Ahead service 82 starts from Punggol int and 82M (subsidiary of 82) cannot start from hougang int which is controlled by sbs transit. Cheers. Thanks.
Explain sv 17A
Originally posted by Tranzort08:Explain sv 17A
Hi mr Tranzort08, precisely. When sbs transit transfers 17 to go ahead, 17A cannot start from bedok north depot (under sbs transit). It starts from the bus stop outside bedok north ave 4 then go to bedok interchange under service 17 and changes number to 17A when leaving bedok interchange for bus stop outside bedok north ave 4. It can no longer enter bedok north depot. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr Tranzort08, precisely. When sbs transit transfers 17 to go ahead, 17A cannot start from bedok north depot (under sbs transit). It starts from the bus stop outside bedok north ave 4 then go to bedok interchange under service 17 and changes number to 17A when leaving bedok interchange for bus stop outside bedok north ave 4. It can no longer enter bedok north depot. Cheers. Thanks.
Yeah,Troublesome to off service also.I sometimes would go Changi South Link there to make a u turn at the roundabout.Should have transfer 17 to SBST and let exchange for 109 instead
Originally posted by orange28:Hi Mr dupdup77, this is not my route suggestion so not sure why you are directing your comments to me!
Anyway, I can accept your point about ensuring a direct bus connection from Hougang Int to Hougang Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo, though from my understanding not many people ride svc 113 from Hougang Int all the way to Hougang Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo. Are they already currently riding svc 62 instead? LTA would probably know this better than you and me ...
Also this suggestion for svc 82 cannot be considered to be duplicating too much of svc 62. Otherwise by your standards (and as I pointed out earlier) svcs 969 and 965 are also highly duplicative as well. Would you agree that svcs 969 and 965 are also highly duplicative?
Don't be so naive to accept any point dupdup says. How does 113 connect Hougang interchange to HG Ave 1/ Lor Ah Soo? Directly?
Will anyone be in the right frame of mind to do HG Int -> Upper Serangoon Rd -> HG Ave 8 -> HG Ave 6 -> HG Ave 10 (HG MRT, opposite side of HG Interchange where sv 62/82 is also available) and then do a loop around Kovan/st 21 before doing HG Ave 1/ Lor Ah soo, when sv 62 can get them more directly to HG Ave 1/ Lor Ah soo by just taking from opposite side?
Dupdup - don't give nonsense justifications just to prove your point right. It's a good suggestion who ever made to merge 82/113.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Don't be so naive to accept any point dupdup says. How does 113 connect Hougang interchange to HG Ave 1/ Lor Ah Soo? Directly?
Will anyone be in the right frame of mind to do HG Int -> Upper Serangoon Rd -> HG Ave 8 -> HG Ave 6 -> HG Ave 10 (HG MRT, opposite side of HG Interchange where sv 62/82 is also available) and then do a loop around Kovan/st 21 before doing HG Ave 1/ Lor Ah soo, when sv 62 can get them more directly to HG Ave 1/ Lor Ah soo by just taking from opposite side?
Dupdup - don't give nonsense justifications just to prove your point right. It's a good suggestion who ever made to merge 82/113.
Hi mr busanalyser, don't also give nonsense justifications just to prove that it is good suggestion to merge 82/113. To those who keep thinking it is good, please take note to duplicate hougang ave 8, hougang ave 6, hougang ave 10, hougang ave 2 then separate for a short while then link up to meet at hougang ave 1 and Lorong ah soo is a super poor suggestion. Thanks god that it is just merely a suggestion and the authorities aim of 62/82 is to go complete different route in hougang. Here we have you trying to make 62/82 go similar in hougang which defeats the purpose.
I always think you give good views in this forum. However from now onwards, I really do not think so anymore. How can somebody as wise as you accept 62/82 duplicate so much in hougang by amending 82 to ply 113 route??? Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Don't be so naive to accept any point dupdup says. How does 113 connect Hougang interchange to HG Ave 1/ Lor Ah Soo? Directly?
Will anyone be in the right frame of mind to do HG Int -> Upper Serangoon Rd -> HG Ave 8 -> HG Ave 6 -> HG Ave 10 (HG MRT, opposite side of HG Interchange where sv 62/82 is also available) and then do a loop around Kovan/st 21 before doing HG Ave 1/ Lor Ah soo, when sv 62 can get them more directly to HG Ave 1/ Lor Ah soo by just taking from opposite side?
Dupdup - don't give nonsense justifications just to prove your point right. It's a good suggestion who ever made to merge 82/113.
Hi Mr BusAnalyser,
If you read carefully, I'm not 100% justifying dupdup77's views. While I agree that svc 113 provides a direct connection from Hougang Int to Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo, the "direct" I mean here means a single bus ride without transferring, which is not necessarily the quickest ride. In my previous reply I also pointed out that people travelling from Hougang MRT to Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo are likely to be already taking svc 62 anyway so this is the same viewpoint as yours. Cheers.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr orange28, why not considered duplicating??? Duplicate along hougang ave 8, hougang ave 6, hougang ave 10, hougang ave 2, then separate, meet again at hougang ave 1, Lorong ah soo. Too much la. Cheers. Thanks.
Once again, if you think this is too much, then what about svcs 969 and 965? Duplicate along Woodlands Ave 7, Gambas Ave, Yishun Ave 2, Lentor Ave, SLE, TPE. In fact over 80% of svc 965's route basically overlaps with svc 969 route. By your standards, surely this would be unacceptable, no?
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr Tranzort08, precisely. When sbs transit transfers 17 to go ahead, 17A cannot start from bedok north depot (under sbs transit). It starts from the bus stop outside bedok north ave 4 then go to bedok interchange under service 17 and changes number to 17A when leaving bedok interchange for bus stop outside bedok north ave 4. It can no longer enter bedok north depot. Cheers. Thanks.
The point of bringing up svc 17A is to show an example that even if GAS (or any operator) controls a service that starts/ends at a depot controlled by SBST (or any other operator), there is no problem amending slightly the route so that the service does not need to enter the depot. What more, the subject here is a potential 82M that starts/ends at Hougang Int, a bus interchange and not a depot, so there should be even less of an issue if Hougang Int is used as a layover point. Otherwise there's always the roads around Hougang Int that can be used as a layover point anyway. Cheers.
(Note I am not in any way supporting or rejecting the idea of svc 82M, I am just discussing the operational feasibility of svc 82M here)
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr busanalyser, don't also give nonsense justifications just to prove that it is good suggestion to merge 82/113. To those who keep thinking it is good, please take note to duplicate hougang ave 8, hougang ave 6, hougang ave 10, hougang ave 2 then separate for a short while then link up to meet at hougang ave 1 and Lorong ah soo is a super poor suggestion. Thanks god that it is just merely a suggestion and the authorities aim of 62/82 is to go complete different route in hougang. Here we have you trying to make 62/82 go similar in hougang which defeats the purpose.
I always think you give good views in this forum. However from now onwards, I really do not think so anymore. How can somebody as wise as you accept 62/82 duplicate so much in hougang by amending 82 to ply 113 route??? Cheers. Thanks.
I don't care whether you think I give good views or not.
113 and 62 are already duplicate. In addition, 82 and 107 is duplicate. The suggestion of 82 merging with 113 is good. Even if it duplicates 62, doesn't 113 already duplicate 62? Do you fail to understand that 82 is replacing 113?
Originally posted by orange28:The point of bringing up svc 17A is to show an example that even if GAS (or any operator) controls a service that starts/ends at a depot controlled by SBST (or any other operator), there is no problem amending slightly the route so that the service does not need to enter the depot. What more, the subject here is a potential 82M that starts/ends at Hougang Int, a bus interchange and not a depot, so there should be even less of an issue if Hougang Int is used as a layover point. Otherwise there's always the roads around Hougang Int that can be used as a layover point anyway. Cheers.
(Note I am not in any way supporting or rejecting the idea of svc 82M, I am just discussing the operational feasibility of svc 82M here)
Hi mr orange, why do we need even to introduce 82M in the first place? They want to cut 113 and 53M and then amend 82 and introduce another 82M? Whatever for? Reduce bus services or reduce buses???
Take out 113 and introduce 82M to complicate matters? Remove 1 and put in 1? What'a the point? Have you ever seen a parent service 82 and a subsidiary service 82M start at different interchanges? Name me a bus service in Singapore having parent/subsidary bus service starting from different interchange.
Do you know that 17A just because it cannot enter the bedok north depot and 17A needs to loop one round to be back onto its route and then treat as 17 on one direction and 17A on the return route? The point of bringing up 17A is to tell you that Go ahead bus services cannot originate from sbs transit depots. It also did not park at bedok bus interchange for that matter. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:I don't care whether you think I give good views or not.
113 and 62 are already duplicate. In addition, 82 and 107 is duplicate. The suggestion of 82 merging with 113 is good. Even if it duplicates 62, doesn't 113 already duplicate 62? Do you fail to understand that 82 is replacing 113?
Hi mr busanalyser, 113 originates from hougang and it is a feeder in bringing residents from certain sectors to other sectors. 62 and 82 start from Punggol and go via different directions and routes in hougang enroute to different destinations. Why should 82 be used to replace 113??? Thank goodness you are not planning routes or else we may have a bit of a travelling.
Also not sure why you want to bring up that 82 and 107 duplicate. Do you want to change 82 from a full fleet SD to a jumbo 82 full fleet DD and get 82 to replace both 113 and 53M and extend to cover 107 so that 107 also removed? And also increase the frequency of 82? In this way, you can have little duplication now that 113, 107, 53M all removed? 1 service to do the work of 4 different services with all its loading. Then everybody just waits for service 82 only. Then 82 will be very laggy with no support. I know your idea is always to rationalize the services to have fewer services. However, our population is increasing and not dropping so why need to reduce bus services? Come on, it does not work this way.
Now you finally admit 82 duplicate 62. Sensible route planners will not plan 2 services to travel similar portions in hougang. Come on, there are many roads and directions in hougang. Can't the proposed 82 be amended to ply slightly more different than 62? If needed, 82 can go via another road in hougang before going to kovan and hougang ave 1/Lorong ah soo to reduce excessive duplication with 62.
Anyway this is just a route suggestion. Thanks goodness it will never ever be implemented. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by orange28:Once again, if you think this is too much, then what about svcs 969 and 965? Duplicate along Woodlands Ave 7, Gambas Ave, Yishun Ave 2, Lentor Ave, SLE, TPE. In fact over 80% of svc 965's route basically overlaps with svc 969 route. By your standards, surely this would be unacceptable, no?
Hi mr orange28, then what you suggest? Take out one service??? If a service duplicates a huge portion of another, you want to remove it like what mr busanalyser always suggests? Come on, the most crucial issue for 965 and 969 is the other 20% of the route ensured the loading of the bus service to be very substantial.
Same reasoning for 190 and 972 which duplicates 75-80%. When LTA wants to introduce 972, they also ensured totally different routing inside Bukit panjang to catch a bigger portion of the residents staying around there. Cheers. Thanks.
People travelling to Lorong Ah Soo really depends. If 113 comes first, they would take 113. If 62 comes first, they would take 62.
Why want to make the lives of people travelling to Kovan/ Hougang from Lorong ah soo harder??
Originally posted by SBS5010P:People travelling to Lorong Ah Soo really depends. If 113 comes first, they would take 113. If 62 comes first, they would take 62.
Why want to make the lives of people travelling to Kovan/ Hougang from Lorong ah soo harder??
Hi mr SBS5010P, other people in this forum want to rationalize bus services and reduce duplication without realizing that with our population growth, more bus services are needed. They don't like the fact that they see bus services which duplicate each other and the loading does not equate the need everytime. They also failed to realize that for bus services, convenience is the key. They want people to squeeze into the buses to make up its loading. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr busanalyser, 113 originates from hougang and it is a feeder in bringing residents from certain sectors to other sectors. 62 and 82 start from Punggol and go via different directions and routes in hougang enroute to different destinations. Why should 82 be used to replace 113??? Thank goodness you are not planning routes or else we may have a bit of a travelling.
Also not sure why you want to bring up that 82 and 107 duplicate. Do you want to change 82 from a full fleet SD to a jumbo 82 full fleet DD and get 82 to replace both 113 and 53M and extend to cover 107 so that 107 also removed? And also increase the frequency of 82? In this way, you can have little duplication now that 113, 107, 53M all removed? 1 service to do the work of 4 different services with all its loading. Then everybody just waits for service 82 only. Then 82 will be very laggy with no support. I know your idea is always to rationalize the services to have fewer services. However, our population is increasing and not dropping so why need to reduce bus services? Come on, it does not work this way.
Now you finally admit 82 duplicate 62. Sensible route planners will not plan 2 services to travel similar portions in hougang. Come on, there are many roads and directions in hougang. Can't the proposed 82 be amended to ply slightly more different than 62? If needed, 82 can go via another road in hougang before going to kovan and hougang ave 1/Lorong ah soo to reduce excessive duplication with 62.
Anyway this is just a route suggestion. Thanks goodness it will never ever be implemented. Cheers. Thanks.
82 and 62 would not duplicate more than what 113 and 62 do today. Don't know how many times need to repeat this. 82 between Hougang and Punggol have totally different routes. 82 would do Kovan while 62 would not. In turn also reduce duplication of 107 and 82 between Hougang and Serangoon. No need for 53M. Why wouldn't a good route modification work if it serves better in so many ways? And yes add DDs if the demand justifies it.
Originally posted by SBS5010P:People travelling to Lorong Ah Soo really depends. If 113 comes first, they would take 113. If 62 comes first, they would take 62.
Why want to make the lives of people travelling to Kovan/ Hougang from Lorong ah soo harder??
Dont jump to conclusions without reading all the posts. Read AJQs proposal on 82 to cover 113. You also keep proposing 113 and 119 to be merged. dupdup will just find anyone remotely supporting to quote to justify his unreasonable explanations.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:82 and 62 would not duplicate more than what 113 and 62 do today. Don't know how many times need to repeat this. 82 between Hougang and Punggol have totally different routes. 82 would do Kovan while 62 would not. In turn also reduce duplication of 107 and 82 between Hougang and Serangoon. No need for 53M. Why wouldn't a good route modification work if it serves better in so many ways? And yes add DDs if the demand justifies it.
Hi mr busanalyser, 62 and proposed amended 82 will duplicate hougang ave 8, hougang ave 6, hougang ave 10, hougang ave 2 and then separate and then meet again at hougang ave 1 and Lorong ah soo. Don't know how many times I need to repeat this. Is that good? If it is so good, why did the authorities not do it? Why? Are you going to say that the authorities are oblivious to all these? Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr busanalyser, 62 and proposed amended 82 will duplicate hougang ave 8, hougang ave 6, hougang ave 10, hougang ave 2 and then separate and then meet again at hougang ave 1 and Lorong ah soo. Don't know how many times I need to repeat this. Is that good? If it is so good, why did the authorities not do it? Why? Are you going to say that the authorities are oblivious to all these? Cheers. Thanks.
Does 113 and 62 not do the same? In fact, they duplicate at one more stop along HG Ave 8. Unless you have a different understanding of the route of 113 and that's why you think it is more direct from HG bus interchange to Lor Ah Soo/Hougang Ave 1. Check the route of 113 if you don't know what it is before arguing.