New Bus Services Announced by LTA/PTOs (Part 2)

last SG · 2016-02-09T10:18:07+00:00

If you're here to encourage people to take the MRT above the public bus, I feel that you have come to the wrong forum. SGTrains was created for a reason.So i...

SMB128B SG

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.

Both directions...

iveco SG

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.

gekpohboy SG

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.

gekpohboy SG

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.

sbst191 SG

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?

SBS7557R SG

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).

Khairiano SG

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

1 of 2 new stops along Jln Tenteram, opp blk 20

One of 2 new stops along Jln Tenteram, (opp blk 20)

bolded: bus stops description not confirmed..

array88 SG

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.

Gus.chong SG

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.

array88 SG

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.

sgbuses SG

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.

array88 SG

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?

sgbuses SG

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.

wsy1234 SG

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.

wsy1234 SG

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

1 of 2 new stops along Jln Tenteram, opp blk 20

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?

gekpohboy SG

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)

dupdup77 SG

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.

sgbuses SG

Demand is not the main consideration. It is operational reliability.

Otherwise 76 and other routes will not be cut in the first place.

array88 SG

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.

dupdup77 SG

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.

Hi mr sgbuses, why sbs transit can handle but other operators are unable to do so? Cheers. Thanks.

« Previous Page Next Page »