Originally posted by iveco:Tampines not even due for refurbishment yet.
Wait till you see another chaos caused by the two tampines stations.
actually, that was meant to be a pick up line, but I guess it's not effective.
If service 85 was not withdrawn, then passengers can still take service 85 to Potong Pasir, Woodleigh, Serangoon, Kovan, Hougang and Sengkang from Orchard Road; and 123 will refuse their amendment to HarbourFront. 85 can also be extended to Punggol at the same time.
85 should have kept, 147 is the one who became full fleet DD.
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/transport-fare-formula-review-amid-hints-of-hike
"With the Government taking ownership of bus and rail assets and stepping up efforts to ramp up services, the burden of subsidising public transport has effectively shifted to the taxpayer.
PTC chairman Richard Magnus hinted at the possibility of a fare increase in his blog post yesterday. "Service improvements come at a cost," he said."
"Linking the costs explicitly to the real costs of providing world-class transport would give commuters transparency on system costs and subsidies, and show them that improvements are “not free”.
Dr Theseira suggested tweaking the formula by incorporating new variables, such as real long-run operating costs. Such costs could include the capital investments in MRT lines and refurbishments, as well as in bus depots and buses, and the changes in operating costs resulting from offering a greater quantity and quality of services."
According to States Times Review, this Theseira dude is a right winger.
That's why after i scrap my Honda car 4 years ago,I switch back to motorcycle for working purpose.My wife MPV car still got another 3 years to go and we plan to extend for another 5 years depending on the COE market.Unless i see more direct basic trunk and more longer route in future which i see wouldn't be happen
Friend, just forget it and renew the COE for another 10 years or get a new car if you can afford to.
As long as the population keeps on increasing, there will always be problems with issues like transport and housing. The problem is about overpopulation here.
It's like a cycle. They improve things a bit, justify the improvements themselves, and then increase the population thinking that these improvements are able to handle the increase. Improvements are made to serve and improve the current capacity, not justifying for more population. Everything just goes back to square one after increasing the population, but then the costs will keep increasing and increasing after each cycle.
Same goes into another aspect of cycle. Increase COE prices, force people to take public transport, public transport fares increase after improve a bit, public transport becomes overcrowded, release more COEs, then the cycle goes again. It is the same thing repeating again and again for the past 20 years.
This is an interesting topic and some of the members here bring up some interesting points. While GCM did have some merits in many aspects, it fails to provide significant links to areas (merely just doing patchworks as highlighted by some members here), and makes it even more inconvenient and time consuming with more transfers based the hub and spoke ideology. Worse, some routes have to be break up to make it less direct.
Going out in future is going to be more tiring, time wasting and troublesome. Luckily with internet shopping and technological advances to work processes and communication, probably we don't have the need to go out so often in future.
The GCM for now is only at its infant stage, give it another 10 years and see how it goes. But if the population just keeps on increasing, all these are just merely a facet and a wasted cause.
Originally posted by vicamour:Friend, just forget it and renew the COE for another 10 years or get a new car if you can afford to.
As long as the population keeps on increasing, there will always be problems with issues like transport and housing. The problem is about overpopulation here.It's like a cycle. They improve things a bit, justify the improvements themselves, and then increase the population thinking that these improvements are able to handle the increase. Improvements are made to serve and improve the current capacity, not justifying for more population. Everything just goes back to square one after increasing the population, but then the costs will keep increasing and increasing after each cycle.
Same goes into another aspect of cycle. Increase COE prices, force people to take public transport, public transport fares increase after improve a bit, public transport becomes overcrowded, release more COEs, then the cycle goes again. It is the same thing repeating again and again for the past 20 years.
This is an interesting topic and some of the members here bring up some interesting points. While GCM did have some merits in many aspects, it fails to provide significant links to areas (merely just doing patchworks as highlighted by some members here), and makes it even more inconvenient and time consuming with more transfers based the hub and spoke ideology. Worse, some routes have to be break up to make it less direct.
Going out in future is going to be more tiring, time wasting and troublesome. Luckily with internet shopping and technological advances to work processes and communication, probably we don't have the need to go out so often in future.
The GCM for now is only at its infant stage, give it another 10 years and see how it goes. But if the population just keeps on increasing, all these are just merely a facet and a wasted cause.
G not thinking straight. it is not like Australia or UK where it works well. i fear that the G is just hungry for $$$. so COE up, water up, electricity up, S&CC up, ERP up, road tax up and many more up. G Screwed everything up yet the % also can go up!
Originally posted by SMB145B:G not thinking straight. it is not like Australia or UK where it works well. i fear that the G is just hungry for $$$. so COE up, water up, electricity up, S&CC up, ERP up, road tax up and many more up. G Screwed everything up yet the % also can go up!
Everything up except the raise of salary
Originally posted by carbikebus:Everything up except the raise of salary
that's the only thing not moving or even gostan.
On the transfer of City Direct bus services to SBS Transit and SMRT,
According to an article at www.zaobao.com.sg/znews/singapore/story20170417-749601,
兀兰è¿�输公å�¸æ€»ç»�ç�†é»„业伟说：“把直达市区路线交给新æ�·è¿�å’ŒSMRTç»�è�¥ï¼Œç‰äºŽç”¨å›žæ”¿åºœçš„巴士æ��ä¾›æœ�务，当局å�ªæ˜¯æŒ‰å·´å£«è¡Œé©¶é‡Œæ•°æ”¯ä»˜æœ�务费，æˆ�本会比较低。 å��观，ç§�å·´å…¬å�¸å‡ºä»·æ—¶å°±ä¼šæŠŠå·´å£«çš„æˆ�本计算在内。â€�
Woodlands Transport CEO say, "The transfer of City Direct bus routes to SBS Transit and SMRT is equivalent to returning to use the government buses to provide bus services. The authorities only have to consider the mileage travelled to pay the service fee, so costs is lower. Currently, the private bus operators factor the cost of the bus into the budget (that's why the asking price is higher)."
ç›®å‰�这类巴士路线共有22æ�¡ï¼Œæ�®çŸ¥å½“ä¸æœ‰å¥½äº›å·´å£«çš„车资收入，并ä¸�足以支付业者的æœ�务费，得由政府补贴。
Currently there are 22 City Direct bus routes, many of which do not collect enough fare revenue to pay the operator service fee, and have to rely on government subsidy.
(What this means is that City Direct bus routes are supposed to be profitable.)
陆交局å�—询时说，这四æ�¡å·´å£«è·¯çº¿ (653, 655, 656, 657) 的两年å�ˆçº¦åœ¨ä»Šå¹´è¾ƒæ—©æ—¶å·²æœŸæ»¡ã€‚当局在é‡�æ–°æ‹›æ ‡æ—¶å�‘现，“ç§�å·´å…¬å�¸çš„æŠ•æ ‡ä»·å¹¶ä¸�物有所值â€�ï¼Œå› æ¤å†³å®šä¸�é¢�å�‘å�ˆçº¦ã€‚
陆交局之å�Žè¯¢é—®SMRT和新æ�·è¿�是å�¦æœ‰å…´è¶£æŽ¥æ‰‹ç»�è�¥è¿™äº›è·¯çº¿ï¼Œä¸¤å®¶ä¸šè€…å�Œæ„�把这些路线纳入它们原有的巴士å�‘包ç»�è�¥å�ˆçº¦ä¸ã€‚é™†äº¤å±€ä¼šæ ¹æ�®å�„别巴士所行驶的里数支付æœ�务费。
The Land Transport Authority said that the two-year contracts of these four routes (653, 655, 656, 657) already expired earlier this year. When the authority opened a new tender, they realised that "the bids from private bus operators are not worth the money", thus decided not to award the contracts.
The Land Transport Authority then asked SMRT and SBS Transit if they are interested to take over the operations of these bus routes. The two operators agreed to absorb these routes into their existing bus contracts. The Land Transport Authority would pay the service fee (to SMRT and SBS Transit) based on the mileage of the respective bus routes.
Sorry for the spam. Just wanted to share an article about the transfer of city direct bus services to SMRT and SBS Transit, which also revealed how the service fees are derived.
In short,
1. For public routes, only the mileage is paid.
2. Express bus routes are supposed to be profitable.
3. The transfer was requested by LTA.