Ridiculous move to have 969 have additional stops. First TPE
Punggol which okay can be understood, but now 3 other stops? What
are they thinking?
Now you know dupdup, anything is possible with LTA. If anyone
would have given this suggestion, you would have outright rejected
before.
Bad move on 969.
This is not the first time that a route is forced to have
additional stops...
Lan lan suck thumb
example 1: Svc 168
When 168 was first introduced, the portion between Woodlands Ave 2
and Tampines Ave 10 was non-stop.
Then, a stop at Jln Kayu was added. (I was fine with that
initially.)
Then, the exit from TPE (east-bound) to Jln Kayu changed from a
slip road into a traffic-light.
Then, a stop at TPE (near Punggol Rd) was added.
Then, there's a new traffic light at Seletar Aerospace
Flyover.
Compared to the original route, the current route has 2 additional
stops... and 4 additional traffic lights eastbound or 6 traffic
lights westbound (including 4 traffic lights on Jln Kayu Flyover
alone)...
Lan lan suck thumb
example 2: Svc 502
This express service used to be the fastest between Orchard and
Jurong East.
Then, SBS changed it into a uni-directional route downtown and
added Bayfront Avenue. (If you board at Orchard, you're forced to
take a tour of Suntec and Bayfront before hitting the
expressway.)
Then, thanks to the opening of MCE and closure of ECP, svc 502 was
diverted to serve Central Blvd, Shenton Way and Keppel
Rd.
I stopped taking 502 from Orchard to Jurong ever since.
Most of the time, LTA would justify the addition of stops "for
the benefit of more passengers". At the end of the day, bus routes
are designed to maximise catchment and hence maximise revenue...
The only wise decision I have seen recently is the amendment of
svc 518 to ply along KPE and PIE instead of ECP, Bedok South and
Bedok North.