Reasons why SMRTB not doing much to improve services thread

last SG · 2005-05-16T19:05:21+00:00

i'm a supporter of tran's island...no more liao..hiazz.. Btw...tran's island is own by the goverment one..or it a private company?

sbst275 SG

Who knows?

Anyway... Dun ever think they custom build SKG Int for the operators, dun forget, the bldg is built by pte developers.. And they based on the design of majority of the buses i.e thats SD and DD as they are more common on SG roads

Volvo Olympian SG

U mean our PM?

Manager433 SG

someone instructed me not to say so much incase 2morrow go drink coffee! Shocked

Volvo Olympian SG

Who?

service_238 SG

both companies are partly under the government la.. u go look at the structure of the company and its management u know already. -_-

i wish that you do not probe anything further or else risk being going to drink free coffee.

Volvo Olympian SG

Huh? Drink coffee?

105090 SG

anyone knows why was bukit panjang services taken over by tibs from sbs?

sbst275 SG

Because of the WDL Extn

phillipC SG

Can anyone rationalise due WDL extension, the government give these routes to TIBS (then)?
Also NEL issue, SBST won the tender, fair enough, they exchange the punggol and sengkang services with CCK and Bukit batok routes.
Question is: why the government give such an extra routes to TIBS?
Sengkang routes were much less than the CCK interchange's route. Why give the Bukit batok route to TIBS as well?
Because of Ho C. I guess!

iveco SG

Back in 1995, BPJ was still a developing estate while SKG was not even developed. Furthermore, Tibs pulled out quite a few services following the WDL extension (but were forced to partially reinstate 950). The takeover of the northern region (from BPJ toSKG) in a way was to "compensate" for losing some WDL routes when the future MRT extension was open.

Also note that PGL was hived off from SKG and given its own route group in 12/2003 with SBST in charge. Even though SBW developed earlier than these 2 estates, it still doesn't have its own bus interchange (but could have it by Christmas). In a way, SBST seems to be doing a better job with north-east routes. It is likely Tibs preferred a slow approach to SKG and PGL (like what they did in SBW) so as not to overtax themselves, but the government's decision not to have a subway monopoly spoilt all their plans.

105090 SG

stupid exchange i say.. the saddest is sbs giving up 67 and 190, and the worst is tibs exchanging cck services for 103, 163, 378, 379, all loss-making routes..

btw, how did tibs also took over bukit batok services? at 25th dec 2001, 106 and one more route last to be taken over? why it happened and sbs didint get back anything back?

cck_190 SG

CCK was exchanged for Sengkang while BB was exchanged for Punggol

The_Bus_Guide SG

From the 1996 Transitlink Guide. Amended Woodlands bus services at a glance.

Svc Changes
160 Divert via Middle Rd and Beach Rd in both directions
169 Divert via Yishun Ave 3/Ave 2, and integrate with 857
178 Extend to new Woodlands Int
181 Divert to new Woodlands Int
182 Withdraw
187 Extend to new Woodlands Int from Bt Panjang via BKE
372 Divert to operate from new Woodlands Int and renamed 903
852 Withdraw (this decision was later reversed)
856 Divert via Sembawang MRT Station along Canberra Rd
857 Withdraw/integrate with 169
858 New service between Yishun and new Woodlands Int via Gambas Ave
900 Divert to operate from new Woodlands Int
902 Divert to operate from new Woodlands Int
925 Extend to Choa Chu Kang Int via Woodlands Rd, KJE and CCK Dr.
Convert to stage fare service.
950 Withdraw
951 Withdraw between Bt Panjang and Woodlands and renamed 180
952 Withdraw
SS7 Withdraw

All changes were effective on 10 March 1996

iveco SG

852 was shortened to BBT from BNL in the end. Good competition for 74 & 157, so cannot pull out.

Also commuters were unhappy with the loss of Svcs 182, 950 & 952. Tibs then introduced Svc 960.

SBS9810X SG

Bendies can move around the present Sengkang Int....This is a fact man that the turning radius on bendies are less than the 12m buses.I don't think it would be possible for more than a bendy to park at the present Sengkang Int.It would be too cramped.SBST/LTA made a big mistake by building the interchange in my opinion.Should have built it on the flat land opp/temp SKG int.Condo residents living on top have to suffer now.I pity them.Once again,it's just my 10 cents.

tranquilice SG

Government policy.

tranquilice SG

Nothing to do with this.

tranquilice SG

The handing over of Bt Panjang to Tibs has nothing to do with Woodlands MRT extension.

Exchange was in term of numbers of territory (Sengkang, Punggol/Jln Kayu exchange with Choa Chu Kang and Bt Batok), not numbers of routes.

tranquilice SG

Services 106 and 173 were handed to Tibs in Dec 2000.

SBS had already get Sengkang, Punggol/Jln Kayu in 1999 before the handling of Bt Batok services in 2000.

Volvo Olympian SG

I Really Don't like this...why must they exchange PGL/SKG TIBS to CCK/BBT..SBS?
and i think SBS did well in CCK and BBT

« Previous Page Next Page »