Hi mr orange28, if you think by swapping 82 and 83 routes (point
of swapping is at Punggol road in my earlier message) is a more
sensible suggestion, then I really got nothing to say. With due
respects to you, I am just glad you are not a route planner. You
are just giving suggestions only and shall stay as that. Please do
not take offence.
Why? If you really swopped 82 and 83, 82 just serves a bit of
Punggol and straight onto Punggol road and turns right into
compasvale street and then to Sengkang east road to Sengkang int.
Haha. Then the whole of Punggol central/east/field lost their
direct link to Sengkang int. Then you will see the loading of the
revised 82 drop tremendously since Punggol whole east area is
skipped. The revised 82 merely benefits compassvale street area and
the route is too short. What sort of logic is this???
The correct thing to maximize efficiency is just to use 82 DD
and 83 SD. Not to swop a portion of route to maximize efficiency.
The most important feature of introducing bus service is to connect
people to destination. Feed people to the location by bus routes
and not to feed bus routes to capacity of buses which indirectly
causes people to transfer.
There are still many different services to illustrate my
example. However, the correct way to really uphold this is to
change the type of bus to suit the route. And definitely NOT the
other way round.
As for the third town argument, hey come on. SAP is not a HDB
town.
Then back to the argument of extension. Yishun interchange
already has a link to SAP through 103. When the authorities plan
route, they also don't plan it in such a way that the same
interchange has 2 direct links to SAP. Another town should get it.
117 from sembawang or another service from Woodlands will get it.
This is to maximize coverage. So did you consider this? Cheers.
Thanks.
Maybe I wasn't too seriously thinking when I replied earlier,
you make some valid points, though I offer some of my thoughts
below.
Perhaps you're the Punggol expert so do you know where the bulk
of 83 loading is? Usually when I see the svc 83 DDs from the TPE
bus stop the upper decks are usually barely occupied in both
directions so I am under the impression that the main bulk of 83
loading stays within Punggol itself ... There would still be other
links to Punggol from Sengkang such as svcs 43, 50, 85, 119,
etc.
You can say that the "whole of Punggol central/east/field lost
their direct link to Sengkang int" but then the "whole of Punggol
central/east/field" would also gain a direct access to
more places along Punggol Rd, as well as facilities in
Hougang/Serangoon, so it's also not a lose-lose scenairo as you'd
imagine.
Yes the shortened svc 82 would be so short it would almost be
useless. Of course then you might look at for instance, cancelling
svc 82 altogether and getting svc 965 to cover the deleted sector
on Compassvale St if you really need coverage there (as an
example!) ...
Yes if svc 103 takes the route of svc 117 to Sembawang then
Yishun Int (117) and Sembawang Int (103) each gets one service to
SAP. No offence, but if you do look/think through my suggestions
clearly you'll see that they are not all silly points that should
be disregarded.
I'm not sure if there are any more relevant discussion points
that we can talk about, perhaps as an endnote, I want to know what
you think if the situation was that svc 103 was extended first to
Yishun and Sembawang (via Yishun Ave 11, Ave 2, Canberra Link)
and then svc 117 to Yishun (via Yishun Ave 1) was only
introduced later? Would you then argue that svc 117 should be
extended to Sembawang and svc 103 cut back to Yishun? Would like to
get at least a simple yes/no reply on this, instead of a "this
obviously will not happen so it's not worth discussing"
comment.
Cheers and regards.