Originally posted by JurongWestresident:Actually, why don't the LTA just conduct consultations with the local RCs and commuters - while check EZ-link card data along the way - and introduce bus plans for every town, like what was done by SBS around twenty years ago?
By now, many things have changed. Maybe it is time to implement a new set of bus plans for every town of Singapore.
Rationalise resources for better service standards, for better rides.
Remember 301/300/983... u cant suit everyone... remove one route last time, no one have internet to complain.. nowadays, just slight amendment will complain in facebook watever....
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
After the chair-fetching days of 578 & 581, I'm not sure if they will still dare to venture into it again. Population might have increased, and maybe if the fare is 85¢ more, there will be takers. But Orchard Rd, being a retail area, mostly attracts people on discretionary travel, who may not see the need to pay more for convenience. If they've got hands and legs, why wouldn't they take the LRT and NEL and NSL to save that money? But such services during peak hours to offices have proven popular, because they go to work to earn money. Therein lies the value of express services.
and add on, not many ppl go to orchard road to shop as well nowadays with all those neightbourhood shopping centre... esp during weekday off peak hour... those are working are working, and who else will usually travel during off peak hour? students? will they pay extra for the express services?
Originally posted by SMB128B:Hehe bro.
Dont play play la.
You try taking 107 to city la! You bloody try!
And you think its a hell lotta fun on the NEL?!
Besides. Sembawang is really a minority. You count all the express svcs in the north as a whole, it far overshoots all other areas served by SBST. I'm not kidding!
funny leh...i tot someone asking to merge 82/107 so that ppl in punggol and sengkang can take directly to city.........
There is a reason why 190 and 972 will always be popular, because of the way they position themselves. But these two routes have very high fixed costs, so you should be glad for these BSEP buses that LTA is pumping in.
If LTA want people to give up cars, first MRT lines must be in tip top condition and there should be an authernative public transport to support the MRT service. in the first place LTA should not remove some of the very old bus service which is LTA claims those serivce will bring down the revenue of the MRT system. the problem here is with five transport ministers in charge. public transport still an issue. money first for GLC then people come second.
I wonder if WP never won the GRC, will the LTA force to use people money to buy more buses and take over the planing of bus service from 2 semi GLC bus companies?
I believe you can see that LTA is doing all it can to upgrade existing MRT lines and build new ones. But it cannot build too many lines at once, if not the prices of public housing will rise. When people had no alternatives to NEL in 2003, did our NEL trains burst at its seams? No. Therefore, the policy at that time is sound. But times have changed.
Originally posted by ^tamago^:I believe you can see that LTA is doing all it can to upgrade existing MRT lines and build new ones. But it cannot build too many lines at once, if not the prices of public housing will rise. When people had no alternatives to NEL in 2003, did our NEL trains burst at its seams? No. Therefore, the policy at that time is sound. But times have changed.
I'd reiterate something I have previously mentioned.
The government has grossly underestimated the demand for MRT lines after NEL. By building shorter stations (3 cars), they have locked themselves into a fixed capacity limit they cannot resolve in future.
This problem will eventually return to haunt them in the long run. They could have built longer stations but still run a 3-car service with a provision for twin coupling or addition of carriages per train
How do you squeeze a 6-car station box at Holland Village?
Originally posted by ^tamago^:How do you squeeze a 6-car station box at Holland Village?
Generally northwards, where there is low density housing. If LTA is willing to pay residents to tear down high rise buildings including Rochor Centre, I don't think this is really an issue. However in the absence of any station or construction diagrams, I can't really comment in detail.
As a last resort, platforms about the length of 4 to 5 cars can be constructed if the first and last 2 doors of the trainset do not open at these stations. This is practiced in historical London Underground stations. Curved platforms are another possibility (with platform gap filler technology).
If it could be done, it would have been done long time ago. And if we can't even get people to move to the middle of the train cars, they couldn't quite possibly go too far into the cars with no doors.
Originally posted by ^tamago^:If it could be done, it would have been done long time ago. And if we can't even get people to move to the middle of the train cars, they couldn't quite possibly go too far into the cars with no doors.
The same reason why planners still think buses aren't overcrowded...until they look at photographs or survey the ground themselves in the last few years.
The capacity was decided based on data projections at that point of time and leaves little room for error. For instance, the Thomson MRT was supposed to be in three-car configuration, and was later increased to four when the numbers were recalculated after the GE.
http://transport.asiaone.com/news/transport/story/new-thomson-mrt-line-open-2019
I really wonder if the Downtown MRT Line is capable of handling the demand with three-car trainsets when the Bukit Panjang section is open.
You can buy more trains, but there are that many trains you can squeeze onto a single line after factoring in signalling restrictions. Other than expensive upgrades with marginal increases that won't solve the problem, the only remaining option is to construct an entirely new MRT line.
Originally posted by lemon1974:Remember 301/300/983... u cant suit everyone... remove one route last time, no one have internet to complain.. nowadays, just slight amendment will complain in facebook watever....
Actually, bus routes can be adjusted to accomodate to changes and improve bus connections. Just make sure that no area is skipped as a result. Usually, the same area can be served via another road.
bus routes 201 and 189 is a good example of big route changes.
Originally posted by sgbuses:The same reason why planners still think buses aren't overcrowded...until they look at photographs or survey the ground themselves in the last few years.
The capacity was decided based on data projections at that point of time and leaves little room for error. For instance, the Thomson MRT was supposed to be in three-car configuration, and was later increased to four when the numbers were recalculated after the GE.
http://transport.asiaone.com/news/transport/story/new-thomson-mrt-line-open-2019
I really wonder if the Downtown MRT Line is capable of handling the demand with three-car trainsets when the Bukit Panjang section is open.
You can buy more trains, but there are that many trains you can squeeze onto a single line after factoring in signalling restrictions. Other than expensive upgrades with marginal increases that won't solve the problem, the only remaining option is to construct an entirely new MRT line.
DTL2 will not 100% replace NSL (JE-YT). DTL2 is only along the eastern fringe of Bukit Batok and Choa Chu Kang. It does not really serve Bukit Gombak. Only at Bukit Panjang is it in the "town centre".
Originally posted by sgbuses:The same reason why planners still think buses aren't overcrowded...until they look at photographs or survey the ground themselves in the last few years.
The capacity was decided based on data projections at that point of time and leaves little room for error. For instance, the Thomson MRT was supposed to be in three-car configuration, and was later increased to four when the numbers were recalculated after the GE.
http://transport.asiaone.com/news/transport/story/new-thomson-mrt-line-open-2019
I really wonder if the Downtown MRT Line is capable of handling the demand with three-car trainsets when the Bukit Panjang section is open.
You can buy more trains, but there are that many trains you can squeeze onto a single line after factoring in signalling restrictions. Other than expensive upgrades with marginal increases that won't solve the problem, the only remaining option is to construct an entirely new MRT line.
Do you know that by having 3-car trains, you don't have to wait as long as compared to 6-car trains? The eastern region will also be served by the ERL eventually.
Originally posted by SMB128B:Hehe bro.
Dont play play la.
You try taking 107 to city la! You bloody try!
And you think its a hell lotta fun on the NEL?!
Besides. Sembawang is really a minority. You count all the express svcs in the north as a whole, it far overshoots all other areas served by SBST. I'm not kidding!
...
but there isn't any options for those in the NE
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
Do you know that by having 3-car trains, you don't have to wait as long as compared to 6-car trains? The eastern region will also be served by the ERL eventually.
You can still have a 3-car train entering a 6-car platform, and couple two 3-car trains together as a 6-car trainset during peak hours.
One driver for both cases. That's how it works in Perth.
But if you can choose to have a 3-car train come once every 90 seconds, or a 6-car train coming once every 180 seconds. Though I believe if we had tried to build 6-car stations, we probably won't see CCL come into operation until now.
Originally posted by ^tamago^:But if you can choose to have a 3-car train come once every 90 seconds, or a 6-car train coming once every 180 seconds. Though I believe if we had tried to build 6-car stations, we probably won't see CCL come into operation until now.
You are missing the point, but I will answer anyway.
I will rather have a 6-car option because a profit-driven operator would rather operate a 3-car train that comes every 180 seconds if they can get away with it and save on one roving staff.
Once you build a short station, that's it. If you are running at full capacity, your options are severely limited.
I believe there are other reasons, could be engineering challenges or others, that has influenced the decision. The Government would not build for the profit of any operators, who can come and go. It will not, however, build without prudence. If the projected ridership is for a 3-car train line, and you decide on gut feel that it should be 4-car, then why not 8-car? If the line runs along unpopulated areas with no site constraints, why not 16-car? The more, the merrier! But I believe that for good reason that they have kept to a 3-car train line. At least they did not go about rationalizing the bus routes that run parallel to the line.
Anyway, if I have to save on roving staff, I would rather operate a 6-car train that comes every 360 seconds....
Currently we have 3-car trainsets at 420 seconds off-peak intervals.
Anyway...
The reason why this topic has sprung up in the first place is due to the general unreliability of the MRT network since the 2011 breakdown.
Trains are running slow because there are too many trains on a given line, compounded by tracks needing repairs. A train has to wait for the train ahead to clear before its own signal is cleared. These delays add on to the commuting time. LTA thinks that adding more trains onto the legacy lines will solve overcrowding.
In reality the signalling system is maxed out and marginal output is starting to bring negative returns. If you have ever ran a transport simulator, you will know what I mean. This has forced LTA to take a little peak hour demand off the lines through the introduction of City Direct services and perhaps a couple of extra buses on trunk routes.
The signalling upgrade to EWL and NSL may bring a little breather, but as long as the open-door immigration remains for the forseeable future and 57 C151B trainsets are added on, line capacity is going to be maxed out again in a few years.
I hope you don't harp on old grievances, because I know LTA is making progress on the very issues you have mentioned. And they have acted quickly to put out the tenders for CityDirect and got the buses running. Repairs are the right thing to do, even if slowdowns are unpopular. They are still the quickest mode of public transport, even if you factor in an additional 5 to 8 minutes along the affected stretch.
Do you think the other lines, especially the MTR which has attracted comparisons since the cities are similar, do not experience congestion and unscheduled stops along their busiest lines? The people may grumble but they are quick to find alternatives; they will not let the Government, or any big corporation like the MTR, bring them down. Yet in Singapore, there is this society so reliant on the Government that they believe the world ought to be like this and they cannot think on their feet. Do you need a society where the Government minds its own business and the populace takes things into their hands to know what being resilient is?
I'm not going to debate about the immigration policy here, but you will know that having a closed economy is going to hurt you as well. You can try to build everything with 3.5 million people, but are you able to deliver the kind of productivity that our 5.5-million economy current commands? HK has tried to preserve the local nature of its labour content, and with even manual workers asking for an ethical salary, government flats are smaller than half the size of a 3-room flat, yet costs at least 3 times more than ours. And they can't keep up with the pace; every flat selection exercise is grossly oversubscribed that they resort to throwing out applications where a circle is found where it should be ticked, a cross is found where it should be strokethrough. And they are clearing a hilltop site for a new town and building five rail lines at one go, with one cross-harbour tunnel and another cross-territory tunnel, amongst other major projects. They are reclaiming land to build a third runway and a new terminal building for S$25 billion; we could strength the soil and the third runway, and build Terminal 5 for just over S$3 billion. All that, just because they insist on using a workforce drawn from a 7-million population. You will not see a single South Asian construction worker in Hong Kong.
Originally posted by ^tamago^:I hope you don't harp on old grievances, because I know LTA is making progress on the very issues you have mentioned. And they have acted quickly to put out the tenders for CityDirect and got the buses running. Repairs are the right thing to do, even if slowdowns are unpopular. They are still the quickest mode of public transport, even if you factor in an additional 5 to 8 minutes along the affected stretch.
Do you think the other lines, especially the MTR which has attracted comparisons since the cities are similar, do not experience congestion and unscheduled stops along their busiest lines? The people may grumble but they are quick to find alternatives; they will not let the Government, or any big corporation like the MTR, bring them down. Yet in Singapore, there is this society so reliant on the Government that they believe the world ought to be like this and they cannot think on their feet. Do you need a society where the Government minds its own business and the populace takes things into their hands to know what being resilient is?
I'm not going to debate about the immigration policy here, but you will know that having a closed economy is going to hurt you as well. You can try to build everything with 3.5 million people, but are you able to deliver the kind of productivity that our 5.5-million economy current commands? HK has tried to preserve the local nature of its labour content, and with even manual workers asking for an ethical salary, government flats are smaller than half the size of a 3-room flat, yet costs at least 3 times more than ours. And they can't keep up with the pace; every flat selection exercise is grossly oversubscribed that they resort to throwing out applications where a circle is found where it should be ticked, a cross is found where it should be strokethrough. And they are clearing a hilltop site for a new town and building five rail lines at one go, with one cross-harbour tunnel and another cross-territory tunnel, amongst other major projects. They are reclaiming land to build a third runway and a new terminal building for S$25 billion; we could strength the soil and the third runway, and build Terminal 5 for just over S$3 billion. All that, just because they insist on using a workforce drawn from a 7-million population. You will not see a single South Asian construction worker in Hong Kong.
...find alternatives. You have just helped to justify carbikebus's argument for more express bus routes as it is the case in Hong Kong.
And I was arguing against it!
Why do you think so many Hong Kong's youth marched on the streets last year? For "democracy"? Really? Tak boleh tahan!
I had an foreign bus operator once telling me "if you are not happy with our service, get a f***ing car!". No problem, I can buy one for a few grand in that country.
Let's say that operator wins a parcel tender, gives you the same reply and refuses to provide any explanation as to why your bus didn't show up for an hour. Do you think you can do the same in Singapore?
I don't see how you are not debating about Singapore's immigration policy when you are arguing against Hong Kong's immigration policy. I am pointing out that migrant workers in any country still need to take the train, have a place to sleep, and see a doctor if he falls sick and earn a living wage as much as its citizens do.
They are humans and they are not invisible. They still use public resources. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Whether the government likes it or not they have to make adequate provisions accordingly.
At this point we have gone way off-topic. On that note I will stop here.
I'm not arguing for the merits and demerits of the policy, but I think I should lay down the extreme ends and you decide for yourself, where Singapore could lead to if it swings to either extremes.
When I say find alternatives, I mean they don't wait for problems to be resolved on their own when a train line is disrupted. They move their butts, and take taxis or buses to their destination. They don't expect the Government or the corporations to hold their hands and bring them around. They are not spoilt brats, they are a resourceful people who will give you a run for your money. If a Hongkonger were to wait for the bus for an hour, if he senses that buses are not arriving or are always full, he would already have walked to the train station or took a minibus (in HK). A Singaporean would cry injustice and malice, and demand an answer, as if it would solve anything. But I'd agree that when indeed a bus turns up after an hour, he might have infringed QoS which they must consent to abide to before operations can commence.
May I point out that migrant workers, or even skilled migrants, are not entitled to preferential rates in many government institutions like HDB and polyclinics. Their right to use public resources comes from the tax they pay. The Government is definitely on its way there in augmenting its resources, while population growth has slowed down significantly last year. But, let's say, we remove all these people overnight, you will realise the difference they make. Costs, and hence prices, will escalate sharply. I don't want to debate about immigration policy not only because our focus is on public transport, but that it is irrelevant to say we do away with them. Migrant workers will be needed where justified (do you want a 3-room HDB to cost $800,000?), and infrastructure must be strengthened as quickly as possible to match it without a strain on construction capital.
Hmmm...
Originally posted by array88:North east side used to have quite a few trunk and express services (e.g. 501, 502) to city, but they were withdrawn due to NEL rationalisation because NEL was losing money at that time. Same thing for the east, Tampines used to have sv 23 to Orchard, but once again rationalised.
Don't forget Bukit Panjang doesn't have MRT yet... After DTL Phase 2 opens I don't know if 190, 700 and 972 are gonna survive