Route Suggestions (Part 7)
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
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.
Hi mr SBS5010P, yes don't jump to conclusions so fast. Read everything again and you see mr busanalyser will just find any proposals/suggestions he deems good especially mergers and he will tell any possible explanations to support it. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
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.
Hi mr busanalyser, from all the replies I give above, I did not even say that 113 is more direct from hougang bus interchange to hougang ave 1/Lorong ah soo at all. I merely stated that hougang bus interchange should have a bus service as hougang ave 1 is part of hougang bus interchange planning. This means you either misread or your opinion of me is already fixed before you start to reply. If you keep having tendency to misread, go and read countless times before attempting to argue. All I want to say is if ever 82 is amended, it should not be amended to be so similar to 62 at hougang area. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
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.
I think you never read my post clearly so I shall repeat myself once again, I am merely commenting on the operational feasibility of a potential svc 82M, I am not saying whether 82M is a good idea or not, I am only commenting if there would be any issues operating such a service. As you noted very well on svc 17A, there is an issue which is that buses on svc 17A under GAS cannot enter BNDEP; such a problem would not exist for a potential svc 82M that starts from Hougang Interchange (once again, an interchange, not a depot).
Heck, you want an example of "a bus service in Singapore having parent/subsidary bus service starting from different interchange", I can give a good example: Svc 53 goes from Bishan to Changi Airport and does not even pass by Hougang Int, while svc 53M has some layovers/meal breaks at Hougang Int. Don't tell me this is not a problem only because both svcs 53M and Hougang Int is under SBST -- if LTA wants a svc 82M to start/end at Hougang Int they can certainly make that happen. Cheers.
-
Originally posted by orange28:
I think you never read my post clearly so I shall repeat myself once again, I am merely commenting on the operational feasibility of a potential svc 82M, I am not saying whether 82M is a good idea or not, I am only commenting if there would be any issues operating such a service. As you noted very well on svc 17A, there is an issue which is that buses on svc 17A under GAS cannot enter BNDEP; such a problem would not exist for a potential svc 82M that starts from Hougang Interchange (once again, an interchange, not a depot).
Heck, you want an example of "a bus service in Singapore having parent/subsidary bus service starting from different interchange", I can give a good example: Svc 53 goes from Bishan to Changi Airport and does not even pass by Hougang Int, while svc 53M has some layovers/meal breaks at Hougang Int. Don't tell me this is not a problem only because both svcs 53M and Hougang Int is under SBST -- if LTA wants a svc 82M to start/end at Hougang Int they can certainly make that happen. Cheers.
Hi mr orange28, 53M starts from hougang ave 1 which is a portion of the route of its parent service 53. 53M does not start revenue service from hougang int because its parent service 53 did not start there. Please do not go and count those layovers/meal breaks la. What we are talking is revenue service. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr orange28, 53M starts from hougang ave 1 which is a portion of the route of its parent service 53. 53M does not start revenue service from hougang int because its parent service 53 did not start there. Please do not go and count those layovers/meal breaks la. What we are talking is revenue service. Cheers. Thanks.
Then why would it be not possible for a svc 82M bus to park inside Hougang Int for layovers, and then off-service to Hougang MRT and start service from there?
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
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.
See, how come over here, you are saying that there is no issue with 190/972 and 965/969 duplicating because there are places in which the pair of services diverge, and then insist there is a problem with AJQZC's svc 82 duplicating with 62, even though the proposed svcs 82 and 62 don't even travel all the way together from Hougang to Punggol, and in the other direction, svc 82 passes by Kovan before going to Hougang Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo, which is something that svc 62 does not do? The whole point of the proposal is to replace svc 113's route from Hougang MRT south to Kovan by the modified svc 82, so even though the modified svc 82 and svc 62 both go from Hougang MRT to Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo they have very different routes in between, and this is the important detail which you seem to not understand. Regards.
-
Originally posted by orange28:
Then why would it be not possible for a svc 82M bus to park inside Hougang Int for layovers, and then off-service to Hougang MRT and start service from there?
Hi mr orange28, then you should say 82M can start from the bus stop at hougang ave 10. Not start from hougang interchange which was stated in the previous messages.
But is there a need to? The purpose is to removing 113 one bus service. But now introduce another new service 82M? It counteracts against the need. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by orange28:
See, how come over here, you are saying that there is no issue with 190/972 and 965/969 duplicating because there are places in which the pair of services diverge, and then insist there is a problem with AJQZC's svc 82 duplicating with 62, even though the proposed svcs 82 and 62 don't even travel all the way together from Hougang to Punggol, and in the other direction, svc 82 passes by Kovan before going to Hougang Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo, which is something that svc 62 does not do? The whole point of the proposal is to replace svc 113's route from Hougang MRT south to Kovan by the modified svc 82, so even though the modified svc 82 and svc 62 both go from Hougang MRT to Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo they have very different routes in between, and this is the important detail which you seem to not understand. Regards.
Hi mr orange28, who says I got no issue with 190/972 and 965/969. I have various issues and I shall not comment here. Because I know many people here supporting 972 and 965 and 969. I want to do modification to 965 and 972 route but I know people here will be offended.
For 62/82, please write in to LTA and let us know the exact sentences what they reply you. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr orange28, then you should say 82M can start from the bus stop at hougang ave 10. Not start from hougang interchange which was stated in the previous messages.
But is there a need to? The purpose is to removing 113 one bus service. But now introduce another new service 82M? It counteracts against the need. Cheers. Thanks.
It's the exact same logic as withdrawing svc 275, and introducing svc 131M, even though they have the exact same route. The whole point is to help improve the efficiency of bus resource utilization through better coordination of bus services, and having a svc 82M means that bus service can run mainly during peak hours, whereas svc 113 will have to be run throughout the day. Regards.
Also I wasn't the person suggesting svc 82M in the first place, so no need to direct the feedback regarding its start/end point to me. It can start at Hougang MRT/Ave 10 or even at Kovan MRT/Upp Serangoon Rd for that matter. Cheers!
-
Originally posted by orange28:
It's the exact same logic as withdrawing svc 275, and introducing svc 131M, even though they have the exact same route. The whole point is to help improve the efficiency bus resource utilization through better coordination of bus services, and having a svc 82M means that bus can run mainly during peak hours, whereas svc 113 will have to be run throughout the day. Regards.
Hi mr orange28, if 82M starts from bus stop outside hougang ave 10 to Serangoon central as per proposal, fine with it. But what's the point? A lot of logistics issue with all these M services departing from sides of roads. The section of this portion are not considered heavy. Just increase the current frequency of service 82 at peak hours will solve it. Rather than introducing another M service for the sake of introducing. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by orange28:
It's the exact same logic as withdrawing svc 275, and introducing svc 131M, even though they have the exact same route. The whole point is to help improve the efficiency of bus resource utilization through better coordination of bus services, and having a svc 82M means that bus service can run mainly during peak hours, whereas svc 113 will have to be run throughout the day. Regards.
Also I wasn't the person suggesting svc 82M in the first place, so no need to direct the feedback regarding its start/end point to me. It can start at Hougang MRT/Ave 10 or even at Kovan MRT/Upp Serangoon Rd for that matter. Cheers!
Don't waste your head over him... He is notorious here for being adamant and picking on everyone's suggestions but never gives any good suggestions himself... he is one of those who will always say "cannot be done" rather than finding a way on how it can be done.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Don't waste your head over him... He is notorious here for being adamant and picking on everyone's suggestions but never gives any good suggestions himself... he is one of those who will always say "cannot be done" rather than finding a way on how it can be done.
Hi mr busanalyser, that is very bad of you to badmouth people outrightly. Please be a professional and do not resort to such things. Your behaviour also really sucks here. You also wrongly accuse people (including me) many times in this forum and also privately apologize to me in this forum mails too. You are not a saint either. So don't act like this.
Who are you to tell others not to bother about me??? While mr orange28 and I are having our own conversation, did it intrude into your private space? You are always the first to start picking on me when I did not even do so. If you don't like the fact that i seldom provide route suggestions, just keep quiet. My style is like this. There is nothing wrong with my style. To each, his own. I did not offend you so please don't expect everybody to follow your style. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr busanalyser, that is very bad of you to badmouth people outrightly. Please be a professional and do not resort to such things. Your behaviour also really sucks here. You also wrongly accuse people (including me) many times in this forum and also privately apologize to me in this forum mails too. You are not a saint either. So don't act like this.
Who are you to tell others not to bother about me??? While mr orange28 and I are having our own conversation, did it intrude into your private space? You are always the first to start picking on me when I did not even do so. If you don't like the fact that i seldom provide route suggestions, just keep quiet. My style is like this. There is nothing wrong with my style. To each, his own. I did not offend you so please don't expect everybody to follow your style. Cheers. Thanks.
stop shooting down everyones' suggestions and be more constructive. Have a more open mind to suggestions others provide. Cheers! -
I rather merge 113 with 45A/53M/119 and 82/107.
-
Originally posted by Sbs6750E:
I rather merge 113 with 45A/53M/119 and 82/107.
Hi mr sbs6750E, yes 82/107 is more logical. 113/119 too. 119 obviously turns one round around Kovan mrt as LTA purposely does not want it to duplicate 136 excessively so make it loop and return back. 119 seems like unfinished business. Extend much further to eunos or st michaels seems too long to LTA and now just loops around hougang st 21 makes it a bit redundant. Like in no man's land. I mean they just find nearest looping point for 119 to accommodate it after serving rivervale drive and hougang and upper serangoon. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer: stop shooting down everyones' suggestions
and be more constructive. Have a more open mind to suggestions
others provide. Cheers!
He does not shoot everyone's suggestions lah dey. At least he shoot got logic one leh. So stop stopping other ppl from giving opinions. Cheers and Merry Christmas :-) -
Relax and chill man...
-
After noticing the sparse bus connections in the Anchorvale area of Sengkang, I have thought up a bus service that may solve these problems.
Feeder Svc 378G/W (Compassvale Int. <> Anchorvale Link [Loop])
Compassvale Int.
Compassvale Rd
Compassvale Walk, Lane
Sengkang East Ave (Tongkang and Rejong LRT)
Anchorvale Lane, Drive
Anchorvale Link
Anchorvale St (Farmway LRT)
Anchorvale Cres
Anchorvale St (Cheng Lim LRT)
Compassvale St
Compassvale Rd
Compassvale Int.
- Greatly enhances connectivity within Sengkang, serving various roads in Anchorvale and Compassvale previously not served by any bus service.
- Provides Anchorvale and Compassvale estate with connections to Cheng Lim, Farmway, Tongkang and Rejong LRT as well as Sengkang Town Centre.Map Link: http://routes.one/idea/112
Feedback is welcomed.
-
I would just merge 113 with 53M and maybe add 1 or 2 DDs during peak hours
-
Originally posted by Seveneighteightsix:
After noticing the sparse bus connections in the Anchorvale area of Sengkang, I have thought up a bus service that may solve these problems.
Feeder Svc 378G/W (Compassvale Int. <> Anchorvale Link [Loop])
Compassvale Int.
Compassvale Rd
Compassvale Walk, Lane
Sengkang East Ave (Tongkang and Rejong LRT)
Anchorvale Lane, Drive
Anchorvale Link
Anchorvale St (Farmway LRT)
Anchorvale Cres
Anchorvale St (Cheng Lim LRT)
Compassvale St
Compassvale Rd
Compassvale Int.
- Greatly enhances connectivity within Sengkang, serving various roads in Anchorvale and Compassvale previously not served by any bus service.
- Provides Anchorvale and Compassvale estate with connections to Cheng Lim, Farmway, Tongkang and Rejong LRT as well as Sengkang Town Centre.Map Link: http://routes.one/idea/112
Feedback is welcomed.
There isnt a direct right turn exit into compassvale rd from compassvale int due to barries dividing each side of the road.... maybe exit via the other exit into sengkang sq and another left turn and continue straight into compassvale walk... cheers!
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr orange28, 53M starts from hougang ave 1 which is a portion of the route of its parent service 53. 53M does not start revenue service from hougang int because its parent service 53 did not start there. Please do not go and count those layovers/meal breaks la. What we are talking is revenue service. Cheers. Thanks.
Sv 53M and 143M also serve bus stops that are not along the route of their respective parent services...
-
Originally posted by Tranzort08:
Sv 53M and 143M also serve bus stops that are not along the route of their respective parent services...
Hi mr tranzort08, yes.
143M because of the way the route is structured to perform a loop around pandan gardens while its principle route 143M to head on to west coast/pasir panjang road, etc.
43M and 53M for the loop issue. Additional stop along boundary road.
Cheers. Thanks.
-
134 (Eunos to Meyer Rd)
via
Geylang Rd
Mountbatten Rd
Meyer Rd
Haig Rd
Sims Ave
76 & 15 can be amended to clean up the mess created. 150 can withdraw unless it can be amended to somewhere
-
Service 110
Compassvale Int - Yio Chu Kang Int
Compassvale Int
Compassvale Rd
Sengkang East Way
Anchorvale Link
Anchorvale Street
Fernvale Link
Sengkang West Ave
Sengkang West Rd
Yio Chu Kang Rd
Ang Mo Kio Ave 6
Yio Chu Kang Int
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr sbs6750E, yes 82/107 is more logical. 113/119 too. 119 obviously turns one round around Kovan mrt as LTA purposely does not want it to duplicate 136 excessively so make it loop and return back. 119 seems like unfinished business. Extend much further to eunos or st michaels seems too long to LTA and now just loops around hougang st 21 makes it a bit redundant. Like in no man's land. I mean they just find nearest looping point for 119 to accommodate it after serving rivervale drive and hougang and upper serangoon. Cheers. Thanks.
I don't think that svc 119 looping at Kovan is redundant. After all, there's the shopping center Heartland Mall Kovan, a hawker center and market at Kovan so it is still a key activity node. If not for the fact that Hougang South Bus Interchange has been closed in favor of consolidation at Hougang Central, svc 119 could very well terminate there as well. Now no more bus interchange there so svc 119 continues as a loop service back to Punggol. Cheers.