the great mrt debate
-
shoud mrts be run by a company or two
-
my answer is 2...
look at things now.. Frankly speaking, i like the way SBST runs NEL rather than SMRT running it.. so.. im in for 2 companies.. -
A subway monopoly is more efficient. Bus routes can be operated by a minimum of 3 companies, depending on the city's size.
-
Subway monopoly can be efficient.. But if the dominating operators service standard is failing, I dun see why monopoly?
As for buses, in SG, we can't have 3 bus operators... End up pre-SBS era of not coodinated rts and worst, buses jamming the roads due to duplication -
2 companies
So there will be competition and service quality will be better. -
i will go for 2. 2 to complete for providing cheaper transport and increase quality of the services without repeating the bus routes.
as for mrt, two also. the final network will be quite big for a company to handle. -
Melbourne's train netweok is bigger than ours, but it is run by a single company (Connex).Originally posted by medicheng:as for mrt, two also. the final network will be quite big for a company to handle. -
oic. sorry wasn't sure about it. thanks for the information.
-
as of today, things should stay the way they are.
for future lines, i think all should be given to smrt to operate it as they are more experienced in the rail business. -
I think the market can decide for itself. What i don't want to see are half-baked attempts at state intervention.Originally posted by leon_lai89:shoud mrts be run by a company or two -
1 or 2 got diff in sg??? there is no free competition at all.. so i really have 1 if not u will have to pay peanuts for 1 more CEO.. KNN
-
But since there are 2 operators now, the 'experienced' one seems to have failing service standardOriginally posted by sinicker:as of today, things should stay the way they are.
for future lines, i think all should be given to smrt to operate it as they are more experienced in the rail business. -
Typical govt talk..Originally posted by lwflee:I think the market can decide for itself. What i don't want to see are half-baked attempts at state intervention.
Say taxi, let market decide, by then, many operators could have wind down... The only reason they say this because they have license revenue to collect mah -
nope.. i think NEL, BTL and DTL should be handle by SBS since they already handle NEL. And they all are linked up together.Originally posted by sinicker:as of today, things should stay the way they are.
for future lines, i think all should be given to smrt to operate it as they are more experienced in the rail business. -
but the aim is to create a better transport network. having competitors killing each others throat is like damaging both their reputation
-
Why not let the government decide?
-
Now, as i have explained to you before, the MRT network and the taxi network is different. In the case of taxis, state intervention can actually result in a meaningful increase in competition.Originally posted by sbst275:Typical govt talk..
Say taxi, let market decide, by then, many operators could have wind down... The only reason they say this because they have license revenue to collect mah -
Well, let's put it in another viewOriginally posted by lwflee:Now, as i have explained to you before, the MRT network and the taxi network is different. In the case of taxis, state intervention can actually result in a meaningful increase in competition.
End up they give more license, isn't more revenue to them? They just care for their revenue collection -
I dont see them killing each other.. itz just like SBST controlling NE areas and SMRTB controlling NW areas.. is not as if BOth SBST and SMRT have trains that run parallal against each other on the NEL..Originally posted by leon_lai89:but the aim is to create a better transport network. having competitors killing each others throat is like damaging both their reputation -
Yes.. i do agree that SMRT had more years of Experiences running the LRT system.. BUT.. if you have given me a choice, i would rather have SBST running the Subway System in Singapore.. One might agree that they are still New in the Rail Business.. But, looking at things are now, tell you frankly, i would rather SBST runs the whole system.. at least, the way that they set the frequency, Services and all that are ALOT better than SMRT..Originally posted by sinicker:as of today, things should stay the way they are.
for future lines, i think all should be given to smrt to operate it as they are more experienced in the rail business. -
I suggest that the government allows both companies to work on a line for a period of time and depend which company shall operate it (the company with the best service quality wins the line). Hence, this positive competition will allow both companies to benefit from one another.
-
SBS Transit= More daring(the driverless system)
SMRT= Follower(for the upcoming Circle line to be driverless)
Hence, both companies shall operate to improve one another. -
Not easyOriginally posted by TIB529A:SBS Transit= More daring(the driverless system)
SMRT= Follower(for the upcoming Circle line to be driverless)
Hence, both companies shall operate to improve one another.
Because CCL uses 100% Alstom system, while NEL is of a mix
Training dif -
In the end one or two it does not really make much difference dun they?
-
Back then when technology wasn't in its present advance state, one wouldnt risk in havin a driverless system.....NEL came later in the picture when the technology was stable so u cannot say that SBSTRANSIT is more daring.Originally posted by TIB529A:SBS Transit= More daring(the driverless system)
SMRT= Follower(for the upcoming Circle line to be driverless)
Hence, both companies shall operate to improve one another.
Had, Tibs won rights to run NEL, i can bet that they would have used a driverless system as well...