Well, on a more serious note, there are both inherent advantages
to both long-and-indirect routes and short-and-direct routes.
Long-and-indirect routes cover more areas and reduce the need for
more transfers, but also adds more time to journeys as the bus
route will have to make circuitous detours all over the place
rather than taking the most direct route possible; short-and-direct
routes use the most straightforward routes to get from one area to
another, and reduces journey times overall, but such a route
creates problems for those living in an area not directly served by
the route - the person will either need to take another bus out, or
walk.
Both kinds of routes have their strengths and weaknesses, and
some routes incorporates both kinds of routing strategy in them;
examples that come to mind include Express 502, Fast Forward
174e, and many of SBS Transit's Premium routes, which take
a more direct route between the satellite towns and the city area
but makes somewhat circuitous detours within the residental areas
to pick more commuters up.
Both kinds of routes are needed in a healthy and balanced bus
system; if there are too many long-and-indirect routes (in order to
heap as much efficency as possible), people will complain about
long journey times - which is already a common grouse. On the other
hand, if there are too many short-and-direct routes, people will
complain about making unnecessary transfers, having to walk, and
such - another common grouse. Not only that, but a lot more bus
routes will need to be implemented, hence requiring more buses and
resulting in the direct opposite of a "many long-and-indirect
routes" bus system - inefficency. A balance must be sought between
the two if Singapore is to have a healthy bus network.
