New Bus Services Announced by LTA/PTOs (Part 2)
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Lets stop making a fuss about 76. As said residents are benefited more than inconvenienced with 134 providing better reliability.
76 reliability has been horrible of late. At first when this was announced, I wasn't happy too as I have a sentiment for 76 as I take it often from Paya Lebar MRT to Parkway Parade. But guess what experience has shown me that 76 frequency and bunching is one of the worst.
I feel pitty for those AMK Ave 4 residents who want to go to YCK MRT and have no choice but 76. If 76 is 20-25 mins late at Marine Terrace, you can imagine how bad the frequency/bunching can be. It is also the only service connecting Paya Lebar industrial/commercial belt to heavily populated AMK residential zone along ave 3/4.
LTA is conservative. They wouldn't have done it if there weren't other alternatives. There is 43 all the way till YCK Road/AMK Ave 3 junction. I think 43 should get more SD->DD conversion as well with this move.
I was just afraid that this amendment will soon trigger many other rounds of cutting long-distanced services, where their benefits may not always outweigh the costs.
That's what is happening in Beijing right now.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Lets stop making a fuss about 76. As said residents are benefited more than inconvenienced with 134 providing better reliability.
76 reliability has been horrible of late. At first when this was announced, I wasn't happy too as I have a sentiment for 76 as I take it often from Paya Lebar MRT to Parkway Parade. But guess what experience has shown me that 76 frequency and bunching is one of the worst.
I feel pitty for those AMK Ave 4 residents who want to go to YCK MRT and have no choice but 76. If 76 is 20-25 mins late at Marine Terrace, you can imagine how bad the frequency/bunching can be. It is also the only service connecting Paya Lebar industrial/commercial belt to heavily populated AMK residential zone along ave 3/4.
LTA is conservative. They wouldn't have done it if there weren't other alternatives. There is 43 all the way till YCK Road/AMK Ave 3 junction. I think 43 should get more SD->DD conversion as well with this move.
Hi mr busanalyser, Ang mo kio ave 4 residents still got sbs 268 plus walk a bit to yio Chu Kang MRT/bus interchange. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
They cannot edit 32, but they should have 122 loop @ Queenstown MRT with coming in on Dawson road with new bus stops.
122 loading at Commonwealth Dr is next to zero (<10) so not many will be affected. Of course there could be those <10 pax who may get inconvenienced and sign a petition.
I think give 122 some time until the flats at Margaret Dr and Kay Siang Rd are completed, before observing its loading...
From my observation a few people do use 122 to the amenities (such as food courts) at Commonwealth Dr. Maybe the number will increase with greater population in this area. Although 122's extensive duplication with 32 is indeed worrying (but 32 and 195's frequencies are not that great also).
-
Originally posted by SBS7557R:
With regards to the whole saga about taking part of the route of Service 76 off and replacing it with a new Service 134 and how bad it is, it's definitely a pity to see a direct connection gone for the sake of improving the overall efficiency of the service due to its long route.
However, I would also like to say that there were route amendments, cutbacks and withdrawals way back into the past that were worse such as:
- 12 December 1999: Withdrawing former Service 864 due to "duplication with sv84" and "minimizing duplication", resulting in lost links between the Northeast and Marina Centre.
- 26 December 1999: Withdrawing former Service 5 due to its, again, "overly lengthy" route and replacing it with Service 970 months later, resulting in lost links along Margaret Dr, Lower Delta Rd, Jln Bt Merah and the eastern sectors along Hill St and Victoria St.
- 27 July 2003: Withdrawing former Service 989 due to "duplication with the Changi Airport" and that commuters are "better served by the MRT to connect to the airport" and replacing it with Service 985, which admittedly is a good connection from Kallang/Boon Keng to Bukit Batok/Choa Chu Kang, but comes at the expense of losing a direct link to Changi Airport.
- 27 July 2003: Withdrawing former Services 85, 501, 511 and 512 due to "extensive duplication with the NEL" and only replacing Service 85 with Service 119 partially months later, resulting in lost links between the Northeast and Orchard/Somerset (Dhoby Ghaut has NEL so I won't go on), Shenton Way, Marina Centre, Great World City and Tiong Bahru. Cutbacks of Services 106, 111 and 502 to Marina Centre from the Northeast to fully oblierate any fast connections between the Northeast and Orchard/Somerset.
- 7 December 2003: Cutback of Service 62 to Lor 1 Geylang, again due to "overly lengthy route". What a good excuse to cut up buses eh?
While some of the above examples of unjustified bus service withdrawals/cutbacks may not be unjustified to some here (maybe the old 5 indeed does not have much demand and replacing it with sv970 is just fine, maybe sv62 is indeed overly lengthy and keeping it backwards at Lor 1 Geylang is a much better option after its demand to the city is dug away by the NEL), some are certainly agreeable to most here (for 85, 111, 501, 502, 511, 512 & 989). Therefore, I won't say this cutback of sv76 is not something that the LTA may not come up with, given that they can come up with the examples above decades back.Inconvenience wise in terms of the need to transfer to sv134 or increasing overcrowding on sv43 due to the cutback of sv76, it may be significant or not so depending on the individual travel needs of the residents. However, I've to say it's not the worst cutback to ever be implemented. If the commuters from sv189 are able to adapt to using sv201, this transfer to sv134 will have to sooner or later be accustomed.As I've also mentioned in an earlier post, the best way to implement sv134 without affecting sv76 would be to have it replace sv150 totally via Telok Kurau Rd. In this way, sv76 is not touched and sv134 can continue to be implemented. 1 more service added to bring greater convenience to the residents of Marine Terrace.And since there are quite a few others here who agree with the cutback of sv76 as well to "improve overall service efficiency" etc., let's have a look at the list of bus services by route length in the earlier post and see what other routes need to be cutback to "improve overall service efficiency". And let's see if petitions will also start rolling when long distance services like 14, 30, 51, 61, 154 and 961 get cutback or split into two.Hi mr Sbs7557R, do you know why Sbs 5 was suddenly withdrawn in yr 1999? It was a damn popular service and there were many passengers. I was one of them. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by array88:
I think give 122 some time until the flats at Margaret Dr and Kay Siang Rd are completed, before observing its loading...
From my observation a few people do use 122 to the amenities (such as food courts) at Commonwealth Dr. Maybe the number will increase with greater population in this area. Although 122's extensive duplication with 32 is indeed worrying (but 32 and 195's frequencies are not that great also).
Hi mr array88, don't worry. Sbs 32 and Sbs 122 will be fully choked with people in 5 years time. The whole of Margaret drive and Dawson area are going to be populated when all the new flats are going to be up. There will also be a new neighbourhood centre with hawker centre next to queenstown Mrt station. The plans are already up in HDB records. Most of the flats are enbloc type. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
They cannot edit 32, but they should have 122 loop @ Queenstown MRT with coming in on Dawson road with new bus stops.
122 loading at Commonwealth Dr is next to zero (<10) so not many will be affected. Of course there could be those <10 pax who may get inconvenienced and sign a petition.
Oh, by the way, looking at Google Maps I don't think it is feasible for 122 to loop at Queenstown MRT. The most they can do is to make 122 loop at Commonwealth Ave via Dawson Rd - Strathmore Ave - Commonwealth Ave - Alexandra Rd - Dawson Rd.
-
Both directions...Originally posted by array88:It's just nice at the 20th place for loop services. And there are many other bi-directional services whose distance in both directions sum up longer than 76.
-
Originally posted by array88:
32 no choice because you cannot let 32 continue using Margarete Dr which is closed. Amending it to Dawson Rd and Alexandra Rd is also not an option because you cannot turn from Alexandra Rd into Dawson Rd.
Maybe one solution would be to let 32 use Dawson Rd and Alexandra Rd towards Bedok, but I guess that would cause some confusion which is not in favour of LTA/SBST.
21 uses McNair and Towner Rds towards Pasir Ris also nobody complain. Also, 131 plies different routes within Pek Kio estate in both directions. 155 plies Joo Chiat Pl in 1 direction and Changi Rd in the other. 30 only passes through Teban Gdn en route to Boon Lay.
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr array88, don't worry. Sbs 32 and Sbs 122 will be fully choked with people in 5 years time. The whole of Margaret drive and Dawson area are going to be populated when all the new flats are going to be up. There will also be a new neighbourhood centre with hawker centre next to queenstown Mrt station. The plans are already up in HDB records. Most of the flats are enbloc type. Cheers. Thanks.
(off-topic)
speaking of en-bloc (SERS), I have a feeling that the upcoming MRT line Jurong Region Line may cause some flats to be replaced.
I bet around 600 flats beside and around Pioneer Primary School (blks 859 to 866) may be acquired and replaced, otherwise I have no idea how would the MRT Jurong Region Line be able to have a pair of elevated rail viaduct between Jurong West Street 75 and the Nanyang Technological University.
The replacement site is obviously at Jurong West Avenue 3 / Street 24, because there is a limited number of sites left in Jurong West for residential use.
Well, if there are flats acquired for the MRT Jurong Region Line and replaced under SERS, the announcement should be in the second quarter of this year, considering it takes around five years to build the replacement flats, one year to vacate the acquired flats, one year to demolish the acquired flats, and around four years to build a pair of rail viaduct and the stations. In all, around eleven years is required to acquire, relocate, demolish and build.
Yet, the MRT Jurong Region Line is slated to be ready from 2025; nine years from now. I guess the section to NTU will not be ready until 2027.
Due to the difference of two years between my own speculation (2027) and the timeline set by the authorities (2025), I wonder if the pair of viaduct can be constructed within just two years.
So, I asked the "experts" at the other forum, in the thread on Jurong Region Line. I wrote one main reply to ask about what kind of system the MRT Jurong Region Line may use and how long construction may take, and wrote two random replies both saying "Thanks, y2koh.". Unfortunately, the administrators/moderators there do not like to be complimented, so just because of the "Thanks, y2koh" replies I wrote, I was banned from that forum. The reason they gave is "trolling and spamming". As such, I am not able to write at that forum. So, I am writing it here.
I am sorry for wasting your time having to read this, but since you mentioned about en-bloc/SERS, I feel that maybe I should share with everyone here on some thoughts I have on it.
I feel that the next SERS site could be at Jurong West Street 81. As the flats there were built in year 1995 and would only be around twenty-six years old by the time the replacement flats are ready in year 2021, I feel that this is an acquisition rather than a SERS project. Nonetheless, the procedure should be similar to the flats at Rochor Centre that are acquired for North South Expressway and replaced through the SERS programme. In this case, it is acquisition for MRT Jurong Region Line.
That said, I feel that there may be another batch of flats in Jurong West Extension being selected for SERS, and have the replacement flats built along with those for blks 859-866. This is because the site at Jurong West Street 24 / Avenue 3 could accommodate around 2,118 replacement units, based on comparasion with the SERS replacement site opposite Jurong Point: "Jurong West Blossom". After we replace the approximately 600 flats at blks 859-866, there is space to replace around 1,518 more flats.
There are flats in Jurong West Extension town that are built in around year 1985, which I feel we can take this opportunity to give the people living there an upgrade. This can help inject "new blood" into Jurong West Extension, where the last new HDB flats were built in year 2006/7 and the population seems to be aging - such that secondary schools are merging - already.
-
Originally posted by array88:
I think give 122 some time until the flats at Margaret Dr and Kay Siang Rd are completed, before observing its loading...
From my observation a few people do use 122 to the amenities (such as food courts) at Commonwealth Dr. Maybe the number will increase with greater population in this area. Although 122's extensive duplication with 32 is indeed worrying (but 32 and 195's frequencies are not that great also).
Queenstown area confirm need some kind of new route, or route re-organisation. SERS (en-bloc) will cause some population to shift. BTOs will increase population. The number of upcoming BTO units in Queenstown (eg. The ones at Ghim Moh Link) is quite large. I cannot remember how many, but I think around one two thousand. If include the past BTOs, I think there's at least two three thousand already, can really warrant at least one new bus service in Queenstown.
-
aiyah young ppl nowadays only know how to complain and complain.. Like this must petition for those bus svcs using north bridge road to call at ICA bus stop (Lavender) or bugis junction as the opp direction does call at Lavender station eg. Sv 7,80,100,51,197 or bugis junction - Sv 7,80,197,133
Also sooner or later there might be a petition to remove 115 as it is used for the elderly only not many "adults" take this bus svc right?
-
Originally posted by dupdup77:
Hi mr Sbs7557R, do you know why Sbs 5 was suddenly withdrawn in yr 1999? It was a damn popular service and there were many passengers. I was one of them. Cheers. Thanks.
TIBS 5 was withdrawn under the Bukit Panjang LRT Rationalization despite not duplicating the Bukit Panjang LRT very significantly (between Petir LRT and Pending LRT, which are currently served by 171, 960, 963, 963E & 963R).
-
2 new bus stop along Jln Tenteram.. Possible amendment of 139M..
Skipping bus stop(s):
- Jln Bahagia: Blk 33
Toa Payoh Int
(normal route till Jln Bahagia: blk 29)
- Jln Tenteram: opp blk 20 (new)
- Jln Tenteram: bef Jln Bahagia (new)
- Jln Bahagia/Jln Rajah
(rejoined to normal route)
Toa Payoh Int
One of 2 new stops along Jln Tenteram, (opp blk 20)
bolded: bus stops description not confirmed..
-
Originally posted by Khairiano:
2 new bus stop along Jln Tenteram.. Possible amendment of 139M..
from Toa Payoh Int, normal route till
Jln Bahagia: blk 29, turn right to
Jln Tenteram: opp blk 20 (new)
Jln Tenteram: bef Jln Bahagia (new)
Rejoined back
Jln Bahagia/Jln Rajah to normal route towards Toa Payoh Int
Good to hear news about the new bus stops there, but I don't think LTA will amend 139M as it's a supplementary service and most of its stops should be the same as 139 (unless 139 is amended too).
It could be a new service with 139M's route and amended into Jln Tenteram. 139M can then be withdrawn.
-
Originally posted by array88:
Good to hear news about the new bus stops there, but I don't think LTA will amend 139M as it's a supplementary service and most of its stops should be the same as 139 (unless 139 is amended too).
It could be a new service with 139M's route and amended into Jln Temteram. 139M can then be withdrawn.
Supplementary services sometimes ply different routes and bus stops not included in the original route...I consider all 'M' services to be as such, like 181M.
-
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
Supplementary services sometimes ply different routes and bus stops not included in the original route...I consider all 'M' services to be as such, like 181M.
IMO I would like to categorise supplementary services into 2 types:
1. Duplicates main service along one particular sector to enhance frequency (17A, 43M, 53M, 63M, 123M, 131M, 139M, 143M, 163M, 170X(sort of), 859A, 859B)
This kind of supplementary services usually do not call at bus stops not included in their main services. There are some exceptions when supplementary services ply roads without the main service and call at the stops there (43M, 53M, 143M), but that's more like for the service to turn back to original route, and is usually not intended for new catchment areas.
These services usually operate together with the main service.
2. Enhances the operation hours of main service, with changes in route to cater to change in demands at different timings (35M, 70M, 92M, 98M(sort of), 107M, 162M, 181M, 182M, 700A, 900A)
This kind of supplementary services usually operate only when their main service is not in operation (with some exceptions such as 98M). The main reason is that demand at some sectors only come at specific times of the day, so there's no need for a full service to run for the whole day. I consider 181M as such a case also for the abovementioned reasons (just like 900A).
Therefore, since 139M falls under the first category, I don't think it's possible to specifically divert it into Jln Tenteram where there's no 139, as this will make 139M seem more like the second category but with operating hours same as 139 and purpose similar to 139. Most likely it will be a new service to Jln Tenteram instead which can achieve the same effect.
Tl;dr version: New service to replace 139M seems more likely to me than amending 139M.
-
Originally posted by BusAnalayzer:
Lets stop making a fuss about 76. As said residents are benefited more than inconvenienced with 134 providing better reliability.
76 reliability has been horrible of late. At first when this was announced, I wasn't happy too as I have a sentiment for 76 as I take it often from Paya Lebar MRT to Parkway Parade. But guess what experience has shown me that 76 frequency and bunching is one of the worst.
I feel pitty for those AMK Ave 4 residents who want to go to YCK MRT and have no choice but 76. If 76 is 20-25 mins late at Marine Terrace, you can imagine how bad the frequency/bunching can be. It is also the only service connecting Paya Lebar industrial/commercial belt to heavily populated AMK residential zone along ave 3/4.
LTA is conservative. They wouldn't have done it if there weren't other alternatives. There is 43 all the way till YCK Road/AMK Ave 3 junction. I think 43 should get more SD->DD conversion as well with this move.
There are a few services I know of which are doing far worse than 76 in terms of reliability. A couple of these services will be going to Tower Transit.
When I was in Perth for a while, I was forced to make an extra 30 minute transfer when my routes operated by Swan Transit were all cut short to increase reliability.
I will be very surprised if I don't see at least three trunk routes from Jurong East Interchange getting cut up within the next three years.
Specifically, there is a substantial risk that routes 51, 66 and 143 may be cut up.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
There are a few services I know of which are doing far worse than 76 in terms of reliability. A couple of these services will be going to Tower Transit.
When I was in Perth for a while, I was forced to make an extra 30 minute transfer when my routes operated by Swan Transit were all cut short to increase reliability.
I will be very surprised if I don't see at least three trunk routes from Jurong East Interchange getting cut up within the next three years.
Specifically, there is a substantial risk that routes 51, 66 and 143 may be cut up.
Since when is TT allowed to do its own route planning?
-
Originally posted by array88:
Since when is TT allowed to do its own route planning?
They don't.
But they have every right to discuss with LTA which routes are unsustainable to operate in terms of operational reliability. Once they receive the hot potato routes, they will know.
Route planning in Perth is also done by LTA's equivalent (specifically, Public Transport Authority of Western Australia), in consultation with the incumbent operators.
-
i don't think 143 will be cut up as there are demand from toa payoh to chinatown and vivo city. return direction still have demand. and also given MRT also very crowded so it only a fool than cut 143. maybe LTA introduced 143 X semi express service from toa payoh to chinatown and loop back. skip newton and novena sector.
-
Originally posted by Khairiano:
2 new bus stop along Jln Tenteram.. Possible amendment of 139M..
Skipping bus stop(s):
- Jln Bahagia: Blk 33
Toa Payoh Int
(normal route till Jln Bahagia: blk 29)
- Jln Tenteram: opp blk 20 (new)
- Jln Tenteram: bef Jln Bahagia (new)
- Jln Bahagia/Jln Rajah
(rejoined to normal route)
Toa Payoh Int
One of 2 new stops along Jln Tenteram, (opp blk 20)
bolded: bus stops description not confirmed..
another new service soon? or amendment to 140?
-
From the looks of it, they are indeed going to introduce at least one more BSEP new bus service in towns with only one BSEP new bus service. (Refer to the reply I wrote last week)
-
Originally posted by gekpohboy:
From the looks of it, they are indeed going to introduce at least one more BSEP new bus service at areas with only one BSEP new bus service. (Refer to the reply I wrote last week)
Hi mr gekpohboy, yes this is a good choice. Give to poorly connected areas rather than roads/towns with many bus services. Cheers. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by wsy1234:
i don't think 143 will be cut up as there are demand from toa payoh to chinatown and vivo city. return direction still have demand. and also given MRT also very crowded so it only a fool than cut 143. maybe LTA introduced 143 X semi express service from toa payoh to chinatown and loop back. skip newton and novena sector.
Demand is not the main consideration. It is operational reliability.
Otherwise 76 and other routes will not be cut in the first place.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Demand is not the main consideration. It is operational reliability.
Otherwise 76 and other routes will not be cut in the first place.
I find 143 hard to be cut in reality.
There's demand from West Coast all the way to Orchard, so for the West Coast stretch you cannot simply cut it short at HarbourFront or Chinatown. There's also no proper terminal near Orchard area.
Unless they want to completely remove the link from West Coast to Orchard (175 cannot really replace 143), which will cause even more unhappiness than 76.