How to improve our Public Transport system?
-
Thing is, how much more road is needed. I don't see the need of any more roads now tbh. The thing we need now are those minibuses system that HK has to bring us into new housing estates which is kind of inaccessible.
Right, that might not make people switch from using a car to using public transport, but at least the convenience is there. I know the current bus network is quite good already compared to other south east asian countries, but there are always room for improvement.Just my thoughts.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
When public transport is so good that all the ministers sell off their cars and take it to work everyday, then we can consider the transport system as world class.
That is the benchmark.
pls go n sleep..
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
One day after u graduate and have a good career then u buy condo and fancy car then you will start grumbling if the gahmen implement this..pls think twice before suggest
u r right..
it is good only for those who can only take public buses all their life.. in short, not able
to afford pte cars..
for those who r able to afford pte cars later in life, these group of ppl who support
si mi bus lanes, dedicated bus lanes will find themselve trap in congestion cause by
these bus lanes..
travel by pte cars should n must be faster than travel by public bus..
but sg is a strange place..
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
May I know where you got the info from?
He is likely a scholar in all these things, so he will have all the info to make all the right decisions for Singapore. Meanwhile, you are free to share what your personal views as a former HK resident, we are all ears.
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
Tai Lam Tunnel no toll? TKO Tunnel no toll? btw.. RMB in reality has been restricted by TD... a lot of the roads prohibits RMB from plying... Like from Yuen Long to Kowloon... llst can only ply Castle Peak Rd.. can't ply Tuen Mun Rd.Lemme tell u something.
HK roads are so well connected that most, MOST higher income ppl don't need the public transport. And the traffic condition don't really differ from SG. Though emission levels there have been horribly high.
And if this is how you want to find fault with me, sure, with all your trolls and you can just go on listing things like Tsing Ma bridge and Lion's Mountain tunnel etc.
I'm sorry but these are just my personal views. In terms of PT I liked SG one much more frankly. Well except for those pathetic three-car trains.
-
Tell u,some ppl really need cars or bikes.I myself got whole lots of cousins in Malaysia how u expect me to haul my kids and maid using public tpt?I normally drive at night or full day during weekends off days only the rest i ride my bike cause i werk odd hours.How you wanna all the population squeeze inside the pathetic trains n buses?Then buy groceries at least my trunk is full loaded then take taxi?Dun blatantly blame the car users but instead our dear gahmen why need to import so many Ah Tiongs,Ah nehs and Pinoys to become citizen or PRs here.I dun need no flamewar either,Period!
-
how to improve?
even I, a public transport enthusiast, drive.
-
I can only said the garmen/LTA is not listening to the ppl.
I have written to LTA/MPs asking the LTA Centralised bus planner to let SBST to take over heavy utilised route like 190 and 960 from SMRTB for a very simple reason as SMRTB cannot cope with the load. They give me a standard template answer will look into your suggestion.
Common sense will ask how the adding three bloody A22 MAN in route 190 help with the load? I will say BSEP is a total failure in SMRT operated area. Comparing with ppl in Tampines and Yishun/Woodlands. In the earlier morning, you have DD (Sv 513) in Tampines to take you to CBD spacious and comfort of having a seat, wherelse in Yishun (Svs 850E) and woodlands (svs 950E), you got to squeze in the A22 MAN buses and face the uncertainty of not able to board the buses. I just wandering if these ppl got use their brain at all.
Also how they came out with the route 120. If there is no demand, just close the route and moved on. no point wasting limited resources.
Ppl staying in Bt Panjang will understand the frustration of taking 960, 190, 700 and 971E to town in the peak hours. Taking LRT is also another mode of choice, but the unreliability and the crowdedness in taking LRT really pissed a lot of ppl off. The frequent malfunctioning of air conditioning in the carriage is another common problem.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
Tell u,some ppl really need cars or bikes.I myself got whole lots of cousins in Malaysia how u expect me to haul my kids and maid using public tpt?I normally drive at night or full day during weekends off days only the rest i ride my bike cause i werk odd hours.How you wanna all the population squeeze inside the pathetic trains n buses?Then buy groceries at least my trunk is full loaded then take taxi?Dun blatantly blame the car users but instead our dear gahmen why need to import so many Ah Tiongs,Ah nehs and Pinoys to become citizen or PRs here.I dun need no flamewar either,Period!
Dont blame the foreigners too.
They came becoz we SGreans don't want to take up the labour jobs. Sweeping the streets or building at construction sites aren't what the present AND the future generations of SGreans expect themselves to do. Even bus driving is something no locals will dream for. So, the gov has no choice but to import all these ppl. To make sure we can even work in air-con offices comfortably.
-
Agreed. The issue here is more on the failure of Govt policy and planning.
-
Originally posted by phillipC:
I can only said the garmen/LTA is not listening to the ppl.
I have written to LTA/Member of asking the LTA Centralised bus planner to let SBST to take over heavy utilised route like 190 and 960 from SMRTB for a very simple reason as SMRTB cannot cope with the load. They give me a standard template answer will look into your suggestion.
Common sense will ask how the adding three bloody A22 MAN in route 190 help to load? I will say BSEP is a total failure in SMRT operated area. Comparing with ppl in Tampines and Yishun/Woodlands. In the earlier morning, you have DD (Sv 513) in Tampines to take you to CBD spacious and comfort of having a seat, wherelse in Yishun (Svs 850E) and woodlands (svs 950E), you got to squeze in the A22 MAN buses and face the uncertainty of not able to board the buses. I just wandering if these ppl got use their brain at all.
Also how they came out with the route 120. If there is no demand, just close the route and moved on. no point wasting limited resources.
Ppl staying in Bt Panjang will understand the frustration of taking 960, 190, 700 and 971E to town in the peak hours. Taking LRT is also another mode of choice, but the unreliability and the crowdedness in taking LRT really pissed a lot of ppl off. The frequent malfunctioning of air conditioning in the carriage is another common problem.
I think LTA needs re-organisation.
They are not improving the current svcs in trouble, yet wasting their resources on things that basically serves no purpose. They dont want A24s for BSEP, YET they don't make SMRT introduce DDs, causing the residents there to have to stick to the squishy A22s. Svcs like 966 and 87 aren't even showing any improvements sometimes. And I agree on you for svc 120.
I don't damn understand why LTA still likes 3-car trains to serve a line that stretches from east to west and YET expect people to give up their cars. Dont use the lame excuse of increasing freq, coz I can see Singapore can dream on running automatic frequency train systems (or whatever u call it), where shorts trains come every 2-3 mins full day.
And how you expect the coastal suburbs residents to travel by PT to the city when the MRT station is so far away and the buses to the city are so long-winded? For example, svc 80 should just omit Kovan and Hougang, since the whole of that sector has at least 1 or 2 svcs covering the route ale. This would allow the Sengkang residents to have a faster ride to the city. Currently most depend on LRT then MRT, which is very inconvenient.
-
Originally posted by phillipC:
Agreed. The issue here is more on the failure of Govt policy and planning.
u r half right.. any common sense ppl can see that these are the failure of Govt policy n planning.. to us, the road users, these r failures..
to them, these r success.. can suck so much more money..
reduce the coes, prices go up..
when jam or no jam, activate the erps..
not enough parking lots, send in the motorbike lta $ collectors..
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
I think LTA needs re-organisation.
They are not improving the current svcs in trouble, yet wasting their resources on things that basically serves no purpose. They dont want A24s for BSEP, YET they don't make SMRT introduce DDs, causing the residents there to have to stick to the squishy A22s. Svcs like 966 and 87 aren't even showing any improvements sometimes. And I agree on you for svc 120.
I don't damn understand why LTA still likes 3-car trains to serve a line that stretches from east to west and YET expect people to give up their cars. Dont use the lame excuse of increasing freq, coz I can see Singapore can dream on running automatic frequency train systems (or whatever u call it), where shorts trains come every 2-3 mins full day.
And how you expect the coastal suburbs residents to travel by PT to the city when the MRT station is so far away and the buses to the city are so long-winded? For example, svc 80 should just omit Kovan and Hougang, since the whole of that sector has at least 1 or 2 svcs covering the route ale. This would allow the Sengkang residents to have a faster ride to the city. Currently most depend on LRT then MRT, which is very inconvenient.
Easy for you to say, why not put yourself in their position and give some suggestions on what you can do? Public transportation planning is an art, there are many ways to do it, and not all ways works as well. Every single thing that is needed, takes time and money to be built. And how do you know they dont want high capacity buses for BSEP? Buses dont magically get built, you know.
The DTL has been in planning since 10 years ago. If you could predict the future it's easy to say we should get longer trains, but who could? Till now we do not even know what the loadings for DTL would be, especially since it is not meant to replace the trunk lines (EWL), but as a supplement and replacement for bus services. Every single decision needs justification. Even if there was enough load to put 4-car trains, how much more would building an additional 24m per station cost and how would it affect the frequency of the entire system?
And so what is your stand exactly? In the opening post you have mentioned that improving connectivity is something LTA ought to do, but now you are saying that services implemented exactly for the reason should be removed? Svc 120 not only has bridged Alexendra area, but also partly stablised 195's frequency by sharing load. And that is what BSEP is meant for, improving connections and frequency where bus operators find it unprofitable to do so, paid for by the govt.
Why not put down your hindsight and start asking questions on why are things being done this way for the future?
-
If anyone is curious, the cross-island line may become a main trunk.
The train-length might be >6 carriages.
***
I think BSEP has made visible improvements for SBST...especially the addition of the DDs.
Can't say that for SMRT. Taking SMRT buses still remains a frustrating experience for many services. And since I started taking bus to Bkt Panjang, I can now experience for myself squeezing on 190 and 960. Not exactly a wonderful experience at all. Peak hr frequency is wonky and the buses have a tendency to crawl at peak hour, even with jam.
-
Originally posted by SMB128B:
I think LTA needs re-organisation.
They are not improving the current svcs in trouble, yet wasting their resources on things that basically serves no purpose. They dont want A24s for BSEP, YET they don't make SMRT introduce DDs, causing the residents there to have to stick to the squishy A22s. Svcs like 966 and 87 aren't even showing any improvements sometimes. And I agree on you for svc 120.
I don't damn understand why LTA still likes 3-car trains to serve a line that stretches from east to west and YET expect people to give up their cars. Dont use the lame excuse of increasing freq, coz I can see Singapore can dream on running automatic frequency train systems (or whatever u call it), where shorts trains come every 2-3 mins full day.
And how you expect the coastal suburbs residents to travel by PT to the city when the MRT station is so far away and the buses to the city are so long-winded? For example, svc 80 should just omit Kovan and Hougang, since the whole of that sector has at least 1 or 2 svcs covering the route ale. This would allow the Sengkang residents to have a faster ride to the city. Currently most depend on LRT then MRT, which is very inconvenient.
You say 1-2 svcs cover 80.
You name me the routes lor.
Oh wait. If I read correctly, then you probably meant that the segment of route within Kovan and HG is covered by 1-2 services.
Salah la.
Still have 101, 53, 153, 113, 107 etc etc.....
What talking you ah?
***
Eh use a bit of brain. Tolong.
How do you expect 80 to get to Aljunied from Sengkang without going through HG and Kovan?
Orh I know.
TPE>PIE>Eunos>Geylang.
wahahahaha
So simple hor.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
Easy for you to say, why not put yourself in their position and give some suggestions on what you can do? Public transportation planning is an art, there are many ways to do it, and not all ways works as well. Every single thing that is needed, takes time and money to be built. And how do you know they dont want high capacity buses for BSEP? Buses dont magically get built, you know.
The DTL has been in planning since 10 years ago. If you could predict the future it's easy to say we should get longer trains, but who could? Till now we do not even know what the loadings for DTL would be, especially since it is not meant to replace the trunk lines (EWL), but as a supplement and replacement for bus services. Every single decision needs justification. Even if there was enough load to put 4-car trains, how much more would building an additional 24m per station cost and how would it affect the frequency of the entire system?
And so what is your stand exactly? In the opening post you have mentioned that improving connectivity is something LTA ought to do, but now you are saying that services implemented exactly for the reason should be removed? Svc 120 not only has bridged Alexendra area, but also partly stablised 195's frequency by sharing load. And that is what BSEP is meant for, improving connections and frequency where bus operators find it unprofitable to do so, paid for by the govt.
Why not put down your hindsight and start asking questions on why are things being done this way for the future?
I mentioned this a couple of years back, I will mention it again.
LTA could have easily planned the stations to accomodate longer trains. Circle Line and Downtown Line should have been built to accomodate 6-car trains.
The trains don't have to necessarily operate as 6-cars from the start, they are still free to operate as 3-cars if they wished. Building longer stations provides more options for future operations. This is practiced in Taipei and Perth.
Yes, there are engineering difficulties for building longer stations but it is not impossible. LTA managed to get around the problems of the Nicoll Highway collapse and build the Downtown Line to connect at Promenade MRT Station.
-
Did they not anticipate that network effects would lead to such a huge induced demand?
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
I mentioned this a couple of years back, I will mention it again.
LTA could have easily planned the stations to accomodate longer trains. Circle Line and Downtown Line should have been built to accomodate 6-car trains.
The trains don't have to necessarily operate as 6-cars from the start, they are still free to operate as 3-cars if they wished. Building longer stations provides more options for future operations. This is practiced in Taipei and Perth.
Yes, there are engineering difficulties for building longer stations but it is not impossible. LTA managed to get around the problems of the Nicoll Highway collapse and build the Downtown Line to connect at Promenade MRT Station.
I generally agree with this, most developing MRT systems have provision for expansion.
However, I still like to bring up one small difference which makes a difference which is the use of driverless trains.
In normal human operated systems, adding more train sets would also increase the costs of paying for operators, which adding train cars (length) wont.
But with the use of driverless systems, you could add new train sets and no new operator is needed to drive those trains, therefore not only increasing the capacity, but also the frequency of services.
There is of course a limit on how far this can go, but again, not a trunk line, but a supplementary line to share load.
-
There is also a need to take into factor the social symbol of a car. Ask any Singaporean girl what they look for in a boyfriend/husband. Car is probably one of the first answers. And they will want their boyfriend/husband to fetch them to and from work everyday.
"Foreign talents" imported into Singapore include the rich as well. There is very little the government can do to force them to take mass public transport.
There are only two ways to this problem. The first solution is to introduce an upmarket public transport for the rich to travel. New CBD express services specifically deal with this issue.
The second solution is to take the convenience and time incentive of using a car away. Perth has a very interesting way of doing this. They set the freeway speed limit at 100km/h and allow congestion to form on freeways. Parallel to the freeway is a metro line that runs at 120km/h. When the rich starts to see trains zooming past them during peak hour, they might start thinking twice about public transport.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
I generally agree with this, most developing MRT systems have provision for expansion.
However, I still like to bring up one small difference which makes a difference which is the use of driverless trains.
In normal human operated systems, adding more train sets would also increase the costs of paying for operators, which adding train cars (length) wont.
But with the use of driverless systems, you could add new train sets and no new operator is needed to drive those trains, therefore not only increasing the capacity, but also the frequency of services.
There is of course a limit on how far this can go, but again, not a trunk line, but a supplementary line to share load.
In Tokyo, the coupled trainsets would even break off and travel in different directions. No need to alight and wait to transfer to branch lines.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
You say 1-2 svcs cover 80.
You name me the routes lor.
Oh wait. If I read correctly, then you probably meant that the segment of route within Kovan and HG is covered by 1-2 services.
Salah la.
Still have 101, 53, 153, 113, 107 etc etc.....
What talking you ah?
***
Eh use a bit of brain. Tolong.
How do you expect 80 to get to Aljunied from Sengkang without going through HG and Kovan?
Orh I know.
TPE>PIE>Eunos>Geylang.
wahahahaha
So simple hor.
Read my post correctly can anot, tolong lah.
I said AT LEAST 1-2 svcs. Which part do u not understand? Talking English don't understand, want Tamil? Salah my head loh.
And yes, it can be done, KPE tunnel can fit DDs. Maybe can leave svc 80 as it is, but why not utilise KPE for the express I suggested in the opening post? Svc 80X? Just suggesting ah, use brain and read thx
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
I generally agree with this, most developing MRT systems have provision for expansion.
However, I still like to bring up one small difference which makes a difference which is the use of driverless trains.
In normal human operated systems, adding more train sets would also increase the costs of paying for operators, which adding train cars (length) wont.
But with the use of driverless systems, you could add new train sets and no new operator is needed to drive those trains, therefore not only increasing the capacity, but also the frequency of services.
There is of course a limit on how far this can go, but again, not a trunk line, but a supplementary line to share load.
I agree on CCL. But what about DTL? That one is exclusive trunk for BPJ and Changi residents eh. 3 car won't work in the long run. Take a look at Guangzhou Metro line 3. 3 car train operation initially with a 6 car train length station structure for all stations. A few years later the Panyu and Tianhe district underwent extensive development and oh god, you should have checked out the crushing load. In the end the trains ended up 3+3 to form 6 car trains and the freq reduced. So LTA could've built a little longer to wait for a while, after all the 6.9 million population is in the near future and more estates are springing from Bukit Timah and Bedok Reservior area. Don't forget the SUTD too.
For the issue on increased freq, have you out into consideration of the how much signalling upgrades and system enhancements will take? Believe me it is easier to run 3 min 6-car trains than 2 min 3-car trains during peak. That's what NEL is good at. It also causes trains to occasionally go empty.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
In Tokyo, the coupled trainsets would even break off and travel in different directions. No need to alight and wait to transfer to branch lines.
But this is seldom, if not impossible on metro lines, just to note.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
Easy for you to say, why not put yourself in their position and give some suggestions on what you can do? Public transportation planning is an art, there are many ways to do it, and not all ways works as well. Every single thing that is needed, takes time and money to be built. And how do you know they dont want high capacity buses for BSEP? Buses dont magically get built, you know.
The DTL has been in planning since 10 years ago. If you could predict the future it's easy to say we should get longer trains, but who could? Till now we do not even know what the loadings for DTL would be, especially since it is not meant to replace the trunk lines (EWL), but as a supplement and replacement for bus services. Every single decision needs justification. Even if there was enough load to put 4-car trains, how much more would building an additional 24m per station cost and how would it affect the frequency of the entire system?
And so what is your stand exactly? In the opening post you have mentioned that improving connectivity is something LTA ought to do, but now you are saying that services implemented exactly for the reason should be removed? Svc 120 not only has bridged Alexendra area, but also partly stablised 195's frequency by sharing load. And that is what BSEP is meant for, improving connections and frequency where bus operators find it unprofitable to do so, paid for by the govt.
Why not put down your hindsight and start asking questions on why are things being done this way for the future?
Of course it is easy. Mine are just suggestions, even I know they are unlikely to come true, though it would be great if they do.
Please don't use infrastructure cost to compare since it takes much more to upgrade signalling and it also costs more to build bigger depots to store more trains. And also takes more men to tend to the increased number of trains. More short trains means more men assigned to tend to each train, and more train series to schedule too. So which cost more now?
I'm sorry for contradicting myself for the part on svc 120. Indeed, my stand was in the opening post and it was a moment of confusion and ignorance to state as such. However I would like to say there are more possibilities than svc 120 that could've benefitted more ppl. This is a sweeping statement so I won't elaborate much.
Thanks for your comment.
-
Originally posted by carbikebus:
One day after u graduate and have a good career then u buy condo and fancy car then you will start grumbling if the gahmen implement this..pls think twice before suggest
Well, I have graduated w/ MBA. I am in my mid-30s. I do live in a condo (have also stayed in HDB). I do have a car. This is in response to government wanting everyone to leave their cars home and take bus.I do that but so many of my neighbours in the condo take the car, coz they don't find it so expensive especially when they are not going CBD. So I know what I am saying, my friend.