Withdrawal of Service 605

last SG · 2004-08-08T10:17:55+00:00

Yes, introduced on 28 June 1992, on the same day service 57 (Bishan - Sin Ming) was withdrawn.

iveco SG

what about 608? does your logic apply to it as well?

sbst275 SG

Yes, they are considered Scheme B rts actually (But is it logical as it has its own rts like serving Chancery Lane for former 603? Scheme B duplicates (Like 60%) of a public bus rt)

Kiv SG

In a way, yes. It wld be hard for S/608 to become a "real" SMRTB service for the same reasons, even when it gets transfered over to SMRTB.
Convert it and it becomes a CTS. Touchy.

iveco SG

CTS? What's that?

Already, we have lost many CSS connections. Thomson Rd to Stevens Rd via Chancery Lane/Balmoral Rd, Moulmein Rd to Bencoolen St via Thomson/Keng Lee Rds and soon, Sin Ming to Orchard Rd via PIE. I don't wish to see the demise of the familiar orange buses just like that.

iveco SG

What’s more, last time Chinatown had direct links to Nicoll Highway. If CSS 4 still existed, it would be the main link between Chinatown & Suntec.

Kiv SG

CTS- Cross-Territorial Service

Well, like it or not, the familiar orange buses is going to disappear in a short while.

tranquilice SG

Also, Balestier Rd (between Thomson Rd and Kim Keat Rd) to Scotts Rd, Orchard Rd by CSS 603.

tranquilice SG

FYI, the 2 pairs of stops along Nicoll Highway (Suntec City and The Concourse) were added in 1994. Prior to that, the only pair of stop along the highway is near the National Stadium. And I don't think CSS 4 still existed in 1994.

iveco SG

I know. This svc was plugged long ago, but it is in the CSS bus guide @ JRL. If it was never touched, it would serve as the link between Suntec and Chinatown.

I did feedback Tibs about extending 970 to Suntec, but they didn't seem very keen.

sbst275 SG

How to? Passengers at Shenton Way will have no bus to Kim Seng Rd/ Zion Rd

^tamago^ SG

actually possible, but to make it feasible, the drivers have to drive faster.

City-Bound 970
... Shenton Way, (ECP, Rochor Rd), Temasek Blvd (Suntec City Twr 3 there), Temasek Ave, (Raffles Blvd) and Marina Centre Ter.

Out-Bound 970
Marina Centre Ter, (Raffles Ave), Temasek Ave, Temasek Blvd, Raffles Blvd, Temasek Ave, Raffles Ave, (Esplanade Dr), Collyer Quay, Raffles Quay*, Shenton Way*, (Palmer Rd), Anson Rd, Cecil St ...

* Can be made an express sector

iveco SG

There is 75 from Kim Seng Rd to Robinson Rd.

970 can ply along Eu Tong Sen St, High St, (St Andrews Rd), Temasek Ave, Blvd & Raffles Ave before terminating at Marina Ctr.

Return trip: Raffles Blvd, Stamford Rd, Hill St, New Bridge Rd & normal route.

Shenton Way can have 77 if they want.

To cut duplication with 106, I have suggested 77 use Clemenceau Ave, Havelock Rd & 186 route.

sbst275 SG

But 75 and 970 is opp sites quite leiche

970 will then duplicate with 961 as well

186 rt is quite deserted at the CBD leg.

106 to me is more redundant as its demand is lower to me. But demand is higher to Holland Village.

I'm doing finetuning to 106 and 507 aft introduction of 90 (Jurong East to New Bridge Rd) aft 90 was renumbered to 144.

tranquilice SG

In my opinion, no need to amend service 970, just let service 961 plies daily into Marina Centre (I’m referring to the link between Chinatown and Marina Centre).

sbst275 SG

One thing to take note, 970 is unpopular as of the frequency as well. SMRTB seems unbothered

leeJZ SG

svc 106 demand is definately higher than svc 77.

sbst275 SG

Depands, 77 has high load at Bt Batok - Toh Tuck Rd

sbst275 SG

I have notice 605 demand has gone completely below 10 passengers aft the withdrawing announcement was announced

leeJZ SG

svc 106 has good loads the entire trip...it has bendies + better freq than svc 77, definately more demand than the latter.

and btw svc 970 cannot be touched, if Im not mistaken it covers parts of the old svc 5 route.

sbst275 SG

Old Sv 5
Between Bt Panjang - Holland Village, Chinatown. Rest is its own rt

« Previous Page Next Page »