Route Suggestions (Part 7)

last SG · 2016-07-04T22:43:50+00:00

For the areas already developed - like Lavender, Jurong and Bedok - if there should be, there would already be.The new bus routes at the new areas - like Pun...

dupdup77 SG

I don't care whether you think I give good views or not.

113 and 62 are already duplicate. In addition, 82 and 107 is duplicate. The suggestion of 82 merging with 113 is good. Even if it duplicates 62, doesn't 113 already duplicate 62? Do you fail to understand that 82 is replacing 113?

Hi mr busanalyser, 113 originates from hougang and it is a feeder in bringing residents from certain sectors to other sectors. 62 and 82 start from Punggol and go via different directions and routes in hougang enroute to different destinations. Why should 82 be used to replace 113??? Thank goodness you are not planning routes or else we may have a bit of a travelling.

Also not sure why you want to bring up that 82 and 107 duplicate. Do you want to change 82 from a full fleet SD to a jumbo 82 full fleet DD and get 82 to replace both 113 and 53M and extend to cover 107 so that 107 also removed? And also increase the frequency of 82? In this way, you can have little duplication now that 113, 107, 53M all removed? 1 service to do the work of 4 different services with all its loading. Then everybody just waits for service 82 only. Then 82 will be very laggy with no support. I know your idea is always to rationalize the services to have fewer services. However, our population is increasing and not dropping so why need to reduce bus services? Come on, it does not work this way.

Now you finally admit 82 duplicate 62. Sensible route planners will not plan 2 services to travel similar portions in hougang. Come on, there are many roads and directions in hougang. Can't the proposed 82 be amended to ply slightly more different than 62? If needed, 82 can go via another road in hougang before going to kovan and hougang ave 1/Lorong ah soo to reduce excessive duplication with 62.

Anyway this is just a route suggestion. Thanks goodness it will never ever be implemented. Cheers. Thanks.

dupdup77 SG

Once again, if you think this is too much, then what about svcs 969 and 965? Duplicate along Woodlands Ave 7, Gambas Ave, Yishun Ave 2, Lentor Ave, SLE, TPE. In fact over 80% of svc 965's route basically overlaps with svc 969 route. By your standards, surely this would be unacceptable, no?

Hi mr orange28, then what you suggest? Take out one service??? If a service duplicates a huge portion of another, you want to remove it like what mr busanalyser always suggests? Come on, the most crucial issue for 965 and 969 is the other 20% of the route ensured the loading of the bus service to be very substantial.

Same reasoning for 190 and 972 which duplicates 75-80%. When LTA wants to introduce 972, they also ensured totally different routing inside Bukit panjang to catch a bigger portion of the residents staying around there. Cheers. Thanks.

SBS5010P SG

People travelling to Lorong Ah Soo really depends. If 113 comes first, they would take 113. If 62 comes first, they would take 62.

Why want to make the lives of people travelling to Kovan/ Hougang from Lorong ah soo harder??

dupdup77 SG

People travelling to Lorong Ah Soo really depends. If 113 comes first, they would take 113. If 62 comes first, they would take 62.

Why want to make the lives of people travelling to Kovan/ Hougang from Lorong ah soo harder??

Hi mr SBS5010P, other people in this forum want to rationalize bus services and reduce duplication without realizing that with our population growth, more bus services are needed. They don't like the fact that they see bus services which duplicate each other and the loading does not equate the need everytime. They also failed to realize that for bus services, convenience is the key. They want people to squeeze into the buses to make up its loading. Cheers. Thanks.

BusAnalayzer SG

Anyway this is just a route suggestion. Thanks goodness it will never ever be implemented. Cheers. Thanks.

82 and 62 would not duplicate more than what 113 and 62 do today. Don't know how many times need to repeat this. 82 between Hougang and Punggol have totally different routes. 82 would do Kovan while 62 would not. In turn also reduce duplication of 107 and 82 between Hougang and Serangoon. No need for 53M. Why wouldn't a good route modification work if it serves better in so many ways? And yes add DDs if the demand justifies it.

BusAnalayzer SG

People travelling to Lorong Ah Soo really depends. If 113 comes first, they would take 113. If 62 comes first, they would take 62.

Why want to make the lives of people travelling to Kovan/ Hougang from Lorong ah soo harder??

Dont jump to conclusions without reading all the posts. Read AJQs proposal on 82 to cover 113. You also keep proposing 113 and 119 to be merged. dupdup will just find anyone remotely supporting to quote to justify his unreasonable explanations.

dupdup77 SG

Hi mr busanalyser, 62 and proposed amended 82 will duplicate hougang ave 8, hougang ave 6, hougang ave 10, hougang ave 2 and then separate and then meet again at hougang ave 1 and Lorong ah soo. Don't know how many times I need to repeat this. Is that good? If it is so good, why did the authorities not do it? Why? Are you going to say that the authorities are oblivious to all these? Cheers. Thanks.

BusAnalayzer SG

Does 113 and 62 not do the same? In fact, they duplicate at one more stop along HG Ave 8. Unless you have a different understanding of the route of 113 and that's why you think it is more direct from HG bus interchange to Lor Ah Soo/Hougang Ave 1. Check the route of 113 if you don't know what it is before arguing.

dupdup77 SG

Hi mr SBS5010P, yes don't jump to conclusions so fast. Read everything again and you see mr busanalyser will just find any proposals/suggestions he deems good especially mergers and he will tell any possible explanations to support it. Cheers. Thanks.

dupdup77 SG

Hi mr busanalyser, from all the replies I give above, I did not even say that 113 is more direct from hougang bus interchange to hougang ave 1/Lorong ah soo at all. I merely stated that hougang bus interchange should have a bus service as hougang ave 1 is part of hougang bus interchange planning. This means you either misread or your opinion of me is already fixed before you start to reply. If you keep having tendency to misread, go and read countless times before attempting to argue. All I want to say is if ever 82 is amended, it should not be amended to be so similar to 62 at hougang area. Cheers. Thanks.

orange28 SG

Hi mr orange, why do we need even to introduce 82M in the first place? They want to cut 113 and 53M and then amend 82 and introduce another 82M? Whatever for? Reduce bus services or reduce buses???

Take out 113 and introduce 82M to complicate matters? Remove 1 and put in 1? What'a the point? Have you ever seen a parent service 82 and a subsidiary service 82M start at different interchanges? Name me a bus service in Singapore having parent/subsidary bus service starting from different interchange.

Do you know that 17A just because it cannot enter the bedok north depot and 17A needs to loop one round to be back onto its route and then treat as 17 on one direction and 17A on the return route? The point of bringing up 17A is to tell you that Go ahead bus services cannot originate from sbs transit depots. It also did not park at bedok bus interchange for that matter. Cheers. Thanks.

I think you never read my post clearly so I shall repeat myself once again, I am merely commenting on the operational feasibility of a potential svc 82M, I am not saying whether 82M is a good idea or not, I am only commenting if there would be any issues operating such a service. As you noted very well on svc 17A, there is an issue which is that buses on svc 17A under GAS cannot enter BNDEP; such a problem would not exist for a potential svc 82M that starts from Hougang Interchange (once again, an interchange, not a depot).

Heck, you want an example of "a bus service in Singapore having parent/subsidary bus service starting from different interchange", I can give a good example: Svc 53 goes from Bishan to Changi Airport and does not even pass by Hougang Int, while svc 53M has some layovers/meal breaks at Hougang Int. Don't tell me this is not a problem only because both svcs 53M and Hougang Int is under SBST -- if LTA wants a svc 82M to start/end at Hougang Int they can certainly make that happen. Cheers.

dupdup77 SG

Hi mr orange28, 53M starts from hougang ave 1 which is a portion of the route of its parent service 53. 53M does not start revenue service from hougang int because its parent service 53 did not start there. Please do not go and count those layovers/meal breaks la. What we are talking is revenue service. Cheers. Thanks.

orange28 SG

Then why would it be not possible for a svc 82M bus to park inside Hougang Int for layovers, and then off-service to Hougang MRT and start service from there?

orange28 SG

See, how come over here, you are saying that there is no issue with 190/972 and 965/969 duplicating because there are places in which the pair of services diverge, and then insist there is a problem with AJQZC's svc 82 duplicating with 62, even though the proposed svcs 82 and 62 don't even travel all the way together from Hougang to Punggol, and in the other direction, svc 82 passes by Kovan before going to Hougang Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo, which is something that svc 62 does not do? The whole point of the proposal is to replace svc 113's route from Hougang MRT south to Kovan by the modified svc 82, so even though the modified svc 82 and svc 62 both go from Hougang MRT to Ave 1/Lor Ah Soo they have very different routes in between, and this is the important detail which you seem to not understand. Regards.

dupdup77 SG

Then why would it be not possible for a svc 82M bus to park inside Hougang Int for layovers, and then off-service to Hougang MRT and start service from there?

Hi mr orange28, then you should say 82M can start from the bus stop at hougang ave 10. Not start from hougang interchange which was stated in the previous messages.

But is there a need to? The purpose is to removing 113 one bus service. But now introduce another new service 82M? It counteracts against the need. Cheers. Thanks.

dupdup77 SG

Hi mr orange28, who says I got no issue with 190/972 and 965/969. I have various issues and I shall not comment here. Because I know many people here supporting 972 and 965 and 969. I want to do modification to 965 and 972 route but I know people here will be offended.

For 62/82, please write in to LTA and let us know the exact sentences what they reply you. Cheers. Thanks.

orange28 SG

Hi mr orange28, then you should say 82M can start from the bus stop at hougang ave 10. Not start from hougang interchange which was stated in the previous messages.

But is there a need to? The purpose is to removing 113 one bus service. But now introduce another new service 82M? It counteracts against the need. Cheers. Thanks.

It's the exact same logic as withdrawing svc 275, and introducing svc 131M, even though they have the exact same route. The whole point is to help improve the efficiency of bus resource utilization through better coordination of bus services, and having a svc 82M means that bus service can run mainly during peak hours, whereas svc 113 will have to be run throughout the day. Regards.

Also I wasn't the person suggesting svc 82M in the first place, so no need to direct the feedback regarding its start/end point to me. It can start at Hougang MRT/Ave 10 or even at Kovan MRT/Upp Serangoon Rd for that matter. Cheers!

dupdup77 SG

It's the exact same logic as withdrawing svc 275, and introducing svc 131M, even though they have the exact same route. The whole point is to help improve the efficiency bus resource utilization through better coordination of bus services, and having a svc 82M means that bus can run mainly during peak hours, whereas svc 113 will have to be run throughout the day. Regards.

Hi mr orange28, if 82M starts from bus stop outside hougang ave 10 to Serangoon central as per proposal, fine with it. But what's the point? A lot of logistics issue with all these M services departing from sides of roads. The section of this portion are not considered heavy. Just increase the current frequency of service 82 at peak hours will solve it. Rather than introducing another M service for the sake of introducing. Cheers. Thanks.

BusAnalayzer SG

Don't waste your head over him... He is notorious here for being adamant and picking on everyone's suggestions but never gives any good suggestions himself... he is one of those who will always say "cannot be done" rather than finding a way on how it can be done.

dupdup77 SG

Hi mr busanalyser, that is very bad of you to badmouth people outrightly. Please be a professional and do not resort to such things. Your behaviour also really sucks here. You also wrongly accuse people (including me) many times in this forum and also privately apologize to me in this forum mails too. You are not a saint either. So don't act like this.

Who are you to tell others not to bother about me??? While mr orange28 and I are having our own conversation, did it intrude into your private space? You are always the first to start picking on me when I did not even do so. If you don't like the fact that i seldom provide route suggestions, just keep quiet. My style is like this. There is nothing wrong with my style. To each, his own. I did not offend you so please don't expect everybody to follow your style. Cheers. Thanks.

« Previous Page Next Page »