150 can withdraw unless it can be amended to somewhere
That the lta cannot make it Even though the suggestion to lta cannot afford to provide the bus service network
Suggests that the bus service 150 should sever from eunos interchange to Kaki Bukit
industrial hub
Suggests to lta said that cannot afford to provide the bus
Originally posted by orange28: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.
Hi mr orange28, 119 potential could be further enhanced if it is extended to eunos or st michaels. It will still pass by kovan mrt (thus serve the mall and hawker centre and the market and shops) en-route to either eunos or st Michaels. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by TIB 585L:st mike no more berth
Hi mr TIB585L, I just saw some empty berth next to service 129 at the eastern corner at st Michael upgraded annex the other day. Did I get it wrong? If I am wrong, feel free to correct me. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77: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.
Basically what i m trying to say to u is that u shldnt be too fixated on ur hypothesis of LTA route planning, theres no right or wrong. Just because the proposed sv 82M start from an outlying int which is not controlled by the PTO (in this case GAS) doesnt make it a bad suggestion in terms of the routing. I m sure there r ways to counter the operational problems if u r talking abt the issues of GAS operating sv out of sbst controlled hg int. In any case TTS also operate minority of sv at clementi though it does not control clementi int so i actually dont see too much of a problem as well. U can just treat sv 82M as a separate sv from sv 82 if the parent/supplementary sv issue is bothering u.
Originally posted by TIB 585L:st mike no more berth
still got 2 more
Originally posted by Tranzort08:Basically what i m trying to say to u is that u shldnt be too fixated on ur hypothesis of LTA route planning, theres no right or wrong. Just because the proposed sv 82M start from an outlying int which is not controlled by the PTO (in this case GAS) doesnt make it a bad suggestion in terms of the routing. I m sure there r ways to counter the operational problems if u r talking abt the issues of GAS operating sv out of sbst controlled hg int. In any case TTS also operate minority of sv at clementi though it does not control clementi int so i actually dont see too much of a problem as well. U can just treat sv 82M as a separate sv from sv 82 if the parent/supplementary sv issue is bothering u.
Hi mr Tranzort08, no? Not just because of PTO issue? Also because of difference between the principal 82 originating from different interchange thereby causing confusion to general public, especially elderly? As of current, no service in Singapore with an M variant operating from different interchanges. If you want treat as separate service, no problem of course but don't tag to the number 82M. Just make it 114.
Essentially there are actually 2 issues. 1 is M variant operating from different interchange from principal bus no. 2 is M variant operating from different bus interchange which is not from their same service provider. Yes TTS operate minority of services at Clementi interchange. However, they do not have an M variant departing from different interchanges (regardless of whether it is controlled by them or not). Feel free to check it out. What I mean is if 82 (Go Ahead) starts from hougang int (sbs transit), then 82M by all means can start from hougang int.
You just cannot expect service 145 to start from buona vista terminal and then service 145M to alleviate the loading and start from Bukit merah int? Or service 2 to start from new bridge road terminal and then service 2M to start from eunos interchange to assist service 2? In this case, it will be too chaotic to the public. May as well name as 2 different service no. If people are not going to follow LTA way of naming a variant A/B/M to start from either same interchange or part of its parent route with exception of 1 bus-stop for looping, then you can start renumbering 965 as 969M and 972 as 190M. Cannot expect the chaos if it were to happen then.
But as you can see, the demand as of today does not really warrant 82M at this moment. If you also need M for service like 82, you will need many services to have M variant already. In any way, you are entitled to your opinion too. No offence? Happy holiday! Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by hgdep103:still got 2 more
Hi mr hgdep103, ok thanks. I was at st Michaels the other day when sbs 129 is launched. I saw st Michaels still have space. Just wonder how good it will be if 129 is from Punggol-toa payoh-st Michaels.
Of course, Punggol int-Punggol central-Punggol east-Sengkang east drive-buangkok east drive-KPE-come out to Bartley rd east-Bartley rd-braddell rd-lorong 6 toa payoh-lor Lorong 4 toa payoh-Lorong 6 toa payoh-Thomson rd-balestier rd-Kim keat rd-en route to st Michael terminal. But I know it is fantasy dreaming only. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr hgdep103, ok thanks. I was at st Michaels the other day when sbs 129 is launched. I saw st Michaels still have space. Just wonder how good it will be if 129 is from Punggol-toa payoh-st Michaels.
Of course, Punggol int-Punggol central-Punggol east-Sengkang east drive-buangkok east drive-KPE-come out to Bartley rd east-Bartley rd-braddell rd-lorong 6 toa payoh-lor Lorong 4 toa payoh-Lorong 6 toa payoh-Thomson rd-balestier rd-Kim keat rd-en route to st Michael terminal. But I know it is fantasy dreaming only. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by Sbs6750E:
KPE-ECP cannot exit to Bartley Rd-Braddell
Hi mr sbs6750E, oops sorry. Means my fantasy route is more than fantasy. Impossible. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr orange28, 119 potential could be further enhanced if it is extended to eunos or st michaels. It will still pass by kovan mrt (thus serve the mall and hawker centre and the market and shops) en-route to either eunos or st Michaels. Cheers. Thanks.
What's your proposal of extension of 119 to st. mike's or eunos? Would be interested to see the route you have in mind :)
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.
Prefer it does one direction Compassvale crescent. Can just operate as 378 if it doesn't do Compassvale walk (doubt there will be any service introduced there as all the blocks are old, and people walk to Punggol road or Compassvale dr for bus).
Out of curiosity, why did you choose the number as 378 and not 373, 374, 375, 376, 377?
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.
dupdup: "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."
Duplication with 136 is not the reason why 119 loops at Hougang st 11. It is to connect to the mall/hawker center and amenities there. Moreover, st 11 has many BTOs and condos that get a direct link to Hougang and Sengkang. 119 route is unique and good, the only thing is it doesn't need DDs as the loading is SD loading. I don't see a reason why 119 should be extended unless it is to merge/rationalize with another service to save resources.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr hgdep103, ok thanks. I was at st Michaels the other day when sbs 129 is launched. I saw st Michaels still have space. Just wonder how good it will be if 129 is from Punggol-toa payoh-st Michaels.
Of course, Punggol int-Punggol central-Punggol east-Sengkang east drive-buangkok east drive-KPE-come out to Bartley rd east-Bartley rd-braddell rd-lorong 6 toa payoh-lor Lorong 4 toa payoh-Lorong 6 toa payoh-Thomson rd-balestier rd-Kim keat rd-en route to st Michael terminal. But I know it is fantasy dreaming only. Cheers. Thanks.
When NSE completes your route can use CTE. No problem
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:What's your proposal of extension of 119 to st. mike's or eunos? Would be interested to see the route you have in mind :)
Hi mr busanalyser, I was thinking of 119 going the current way till kovan mrt then extend along upper Serangoon road all the way till PIE then come out Jalan eunos to eunos mrt. Like that, it will help further in diverting people from NEL and most importantly take up more loading. Moreover, it also helps and speeds up travel a bit if northeast people use it as a medium fast gateway to the east (eunos mrt) without duplicating hougang ave 3-eunos link method to go eunos.
I understand you are fine with 119 looping at kovan area and I am good with it too if you find this extension not very appropriate. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Prefer it does one direction Compassvale crescent. Can just operate as 378 if it doesn't do Compassvale walk (doubt there will be any service introduced there as all the blocks are old, and people walk to Punggol road or Compassvale dr for bus).
Out of curiosity, why did you choose the number as 378 and not 373, 374, 375, 376, 377?
Becuase number 8 is auspicious mah
Originally posted by hgdep103:still got 2 more
only one berth left.. the inner most berth cant be used... buses are having difficulty to park in that berth and also reverse out... even 129 buses now also have to slowly reverse out of berth 10... (and SBST have to remove their container office also)....
the design for berh 10/11/12 is wrong.. they should have designed it perpendicular to the current berths...
they should have expanded St Mike terminal..put more parking lots at the empty plot of land near the junction.. nowadays alway saw buses stopping outside the terminal , waiting for parking lots....
Disclaimer: I know it won't be possible because of space at CCK but a suggestion anyway!
svc 972: CCK Interchange <> Marina Center Terminal
CCK Interchange
CCK Way
CCK Road
Bukit Panjang Road
current route
Bras Basah Road
Suntec City
Marina Center Terminal
* Provides connection between CCK/CCK Way to Bukit Panjang ring road (connection missing)
* Connects CCK Way, some part of Keat Hong new development to Orchard/Suntec (since 190 is v popular along Teck Whye, I assume there could be some who may choose this direct service even if it is looping)
* Serves main purpose of transfer node at both ends of Bukit Panjang Road to ring road (the transfer node close to Woodlands Road will go away once BPJ Interchange is developed).
* To make some space, 983 to become BPJ <> CCK (loop) and 172 to have more resting time at Boon Lay. 972 also to have more resting time at Marina Center since it got space + 171 will be shortened to BPJ in future.
Originally posted by lemon1974:only one berth left.. the inner most berth cant be used... buses are having difficulty to park in that berth and also reverse out... even 129 buses now also have to slowly reverse out of berth 10... (and SBST have to remove their container office also)....
the design for berh 10/11/12 is wrong.. they should have designed it perpendicular to the current berths...
they should have expanded St Mike terminal..put more parking lots at the empty plot of land near the junction.. nowadays alway saw buses stopping outside the terminal , waiting for parking lots....
More buses,better rides,BCs having a problem and Interchange too small
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:Disclaimer: I know it won't be possible because of space at CCK but a suggestion anyway!
svc 972: CCK Interchange <> Marina Center Terminal
CCK Interchange
CCK Way
CCK Road
Bukit Panjang Road
current route
Bras Basah Road
Suntec City
Marina Center Terminal
* Provides connection between CCK/CCK Way to Bukit Panjang ring road (connection missing)
* Connects CCK Way, some part of Keat Hong new development to Orchard/Suntec (since 190 is v popular along Teck Whye, I assume there could be some who may choose this direct service even if it is looping)
* Serves main purpose of transfer node at both ends of Bukit Panjang Road to ring road (the transfer node close to Woodlands Road will go away once BPJ Interchange is developed).
* To make some space, 983 to become BPJ <> CCK (loop) and 172 to have more resting time at Boon Lay. 972 also to have more resting time at Marina Center since it got space + 171 will be shortened to BPJ in future.
190 + 972 = BPJ got no place to stand.
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr Tranzort08, no? Not just because of PTO issue? Also because of difference between the principal 82 originating from different interchange thereby causing confusion to general public, especially elderly? As of current, no service in Singapore with an M variant operating from different interchanges. If you want treat as separate service, no problem of course but don't tag to the number 82M. Just make it 114.
Essentially there are actually 2 issues. 1 is M variant operating from different interchange from principal bus no. 2 is M variant operating from different bus interchange which is not from their same service provider. Yes TTS operate minority of services at Clementi interchange. However, they do not have an M variant departing from different interchanges (regardless of whether it is controlled by them or not). Feel free to check it out. What I mean is if 82 (Go Ahead) starts from hougang int (sbs transit), then 82M by all means can start from hougang int.
You just cannot expect service 145 to start from buona vista terminal and then service 145M to alleviate the loading and start from Bukit merah int? Or service 2 to start from new bridge road terminal and then service 2M to start from eunos interchange to assist service 2? In this case, it will be too chaotic to the public. May as well name as 2 different service no. If people are not going to follow LTA way of naming a variant A/B/M to start from either same interchange or part of its parent route with exception of 1 bus-stop for looping, then you can start renumbering 965 as 969M and 972 as 190M. Cannot expect the chaos if it were to happen then.
But as you can see, the demand as of today does not really warrant 82M at this moment. If you also need M for service like 82, you will need many services to have M variant already. In any way, you are entitled to your opinion too. No offence? Happy holiday! Cheers. Thanks.
Hmm i get what u mean here, but i think it is essentially up to LTA to decide the route numbering conventions. In hong kong, KMB would indeed probably call sv 972 as 190M and 965 as 969M. Yes, it will cause some confusion to the singapore public initially but then again i think we can be open to such naming conventions. Think abt sv 240M, ppl taking the bus towards boon lay might be confused over whether it will enter int or loop outside boon lat mrt. Same for 979M.
Originally posted by Tranzort08:Hmm i get what u mean here, but i think it is essentially up to LTA to decide the route numbering conventions. In hong kong, KMB would indeed probably call sv 972 as 190M and 965 as 969M. Yes, it will cause some confusion to the singapore public initially but then again i think we can be open to such naming conventions. Think abt sv 240M, ppl taking the bus towards boon lay might be confused over whether it will enter int or loop outside boon lat mrt. Same for 979M.
Not exactly. 972 will be called 190A and 965 will be 969A in HK.
Originally posted by SMB128B:Not exactly. 972 will be called 190A and 965 will be 969A in HK.
Ya i am just using the M variant used in singapore as an illustration
Originally posted by dupdup77:Hi mr sbs6750E, oops sorry. Means my fantasy route is more than fantasy. Impossible. Cheers. Thanks.
Originally posted by Sbs6750E:
Furthermore Kim Keat Rd only 1-way... Must go by Whampoa Dr. Good it never plies Jln Bahagia, too congested with buses liao.
Hi mr sbs6750E, yes you are right. Kim keat 1 direction. Cheers. Thanks.