A bit OT on bus interchanges/terminals...
In london, only major places have a "bus terminal" where a few
routes gather...
If not, it will be just a pole and a road dyed red that says bus
stand, normally it will have space for 2 buses, not more than
tt...
same for tt in Hong Kong, Barcelona, Paris, Madrid, Zurich, Vienna,
Salzburg, Amsterdam, etc...
We are too concentrated on Hub n spoke till it is constricting the
existing bus interchange from expanding...
Tot LTA officials always go overseas for studies on public
transport, obviously, they have missed out on the point : NO need
to have grand integrated structures for bus
terminals/interchanges...
Simple is best... Terminals/Interchanges built too many are white
elephants...
if you want to have integrated facilities, follow Hong Kong, 2 -
3)ie from Ground floor to level 2) levels of strategic
buildings(most are near MTR stations) are left empty for buses (GMB
n public buses) to terminate...
Not true for HK.
Hub and spoke? No. In all public housing estates with a "The
Link" mall nearby an integrated transport hub, consisting of a bus
terminal, a taxi stand and a minibus terminal, alongside major
interchanges near MTR stations. This is as opposed to SG having bus
ints at some MRT stations with bus services from there connecting
all other public housing.
HK is not hub and spoke as most, if not all of these bus
terminals will have at least one service that either plies to the
city, or anywhere near the city.
And I believe SG should have more integrated hubs. In land
scarce SG it is viable to use space efficiently, such as building
up. Good to see SG is doing the correct thing. Sengkang, Serangoon
and TPY are all very successful examples which serves as good as
those in HK.
Indeed, too many will also not being beneficial, as much as
having too little (like SG). Like the Kin Ming Bus Ter which was
literally abandoned until 2010 or so.