If my memory serves me correct, there was a long drawn issue over a covered walkway between a MRT station and a building and there was an impasse over cost i.e. whether SMRT should foot the bill or the building’s owner should do it…

Can’t remember if it was eventually resolved but I suspect not if empirical evidence is anything to go by…

There is still a small gap between one of the Tanjong Pagar MRT exit and International Plaza – one will get wet if it rains…

Two months ago, I emailed the Minister of Transport to suggest that there should be second level sheltered linkways to allow people to walk from various parts of the town to the town center, MRT station and bus terminus.

He sent my suggestion to the Land Transport Authority. Nobody contacted me. It is quite disappointing. It looks like sugestions are not welcomed.

I am glad to learn that Hong Kong has the second level linkways. I think that it makes a lot of sense.

You are right about the mini buses too and also not getting the incumbent to run or ruin such services if ever rolled out in SG. HK has so much we can learn from them. The way they construct overhead pedestrian bridges linking from one area of shopping to another area is efficient and effective. It is not even in their shopping belt or HK island big malls. It is everywhere in HK. Their octopus contact less card was introduced more than a decade ago as compared to our SMRT introduction. So much more we can learn from HK.

I strongly support the idea of light buses to provide a feeder service to MRT stations. I have advocated this idea on many, many occasions in my blog and through many other channels.

One recent blog entry congratulated LTA and SMRT for introducing more train services and asked LTA to allow SMRT to run these feeder services. We should not ask SBS Transit to provide these services as it is against their commercial interest.

We need a more integrated public transport system that can serve the public well, instead of creating inefficiencies that allows the transport operators to impose higher charges and make more profit.

I have long admired the light bus system in Hong Kong. Many people tell me that it is an excellent system (although I have not tried it myself). It make a lot of sense!

How about having mini buses just like the ones in HK? It is faster and carries more passenger and is very good running in surburaban and maybe downtown as well….can also compliment existing bustops or allow commuters to board /alight anywhere they want. I always admired HK transportation and road networks. It seems to be much better positioned than SG when you consider that their population is so much bigger and their land area(flat land) is lesser than SG.

I agreed with your point that some jobs can work from home and people should be given incentives to stay near their workplace so as to reduce commuting time.

FG

To solve the traffic congestion problem, most of the efforts in the past have focused on improving the public transport system and building more roads. I agree that this is important.

In my paper, I focused on another strategy, which is often overlooked, namely to reduce the need for commuting. They are to encourage people to work closer to their home, and also to expand working from home (i.e. using the internet).

Some people point out why it is not practical for them to work closer to their home. I agree. My proposal is not intended to apply to 100% of Singaporeans. I hope that it can apply to 30% of Singaporeans.

If 30% of people take public transport less, you may find it more convenient to take public transport (as you obviously do not belong to the 30% that can work closer to their homes).

Let us try to identify the people who now form the 30%. It may require a change of thinking and habit.

I have written in many places on the need to improve our public transport, i.e. buses and MRT. I find the present standard of service by the operators, and their focus on making more profit for shareholders, to be quite unsatisfactory. Read my blog for my comments on these areas:
http://www.tankinlian.blogspot.com

I am a regular user of public transport, although I do own a car.

What is the difference here, may I ask? If we can identify what does not work, we will have to find out how to counter this, am I correct? IMHO there must be a sincere desire to overhaul our public transport system to entice more people to it in order to free our roads of private cars. We should get to the root of the problem. Your call for a co-ordinated national effort is good but none of the 4 alternatives will be able to achieve the desired effect. Sorry I am just an old lady suffering in our present transport system and unable to offer any solution to you; I agree with Rakesh that it’s the onus of the govt to solve this before we hit 6.5 million. This will turn into a real nightmare.

Taking the MRT is faster, but it’s quite uncomfortable in the morning. I keep hearing people saying that our MRT is so much better than the Japanese Train and the London Tube, I have never been to these places, could somebody please tell us how do they manage with the larger passenger volume? I’m already feeling suffocated and perspiring all over after a short journey.

I must admit though, it’s also partly my fault for choosing to live in one of the most ulu parts of Singapore. :P

If somebody is willing to provide a premium service that’s faster, more direct and more comfortable, I’m willing to give it a go.

The one to get to Pasir Laba Camp already takes a toll on me especially when I have corrective training on Saturdays. To avoid jams and take into consideration bad luck when waiting for buses requires me to leave another half an hour earlier to book in.

The great irony is that my posting is NOT based on my results (or so says my Sir and my Sergeants), and that it is completely random. I want to know, why the randomness, especially when there are postings in other camps which are available and are nearer to my house e.g. Medics in Nee Soon Camp or Combat Engineers.

Yes, booking out is a privilege. But I do not believe that it should be such a pain for all of us who cannot afford to drive and take taxis, especially in this time of rising living costs and low NSF pay. Moreover, there are many taxi drivers who do not wish to enter Sungei Gedong because it is such a desolate place.

I am truly stressed by this posting.

Previously, I had the same opinion. Later, I observed that it does take up to one hour to travel from one part of Singapore to another, due to traffic congestion. I applaud the Government’s efforts to improve the public transport system, such as increasing the train frequency, whole day bus lanes, etc.

I think that this should be supplemented by a conscious effort to reduce the need for commuting. Every part of the strategy helps to solve the overall problem.

I agree that the “reduce commuting” strategy does not apply to everyone. I hope that, with a conscious effort, it can apply to 30% of the population. If we can reduce commuting by 30%, it will be a great help.

There are challenges involved in my proposed strategy. Someone said, “how do we decide on the incentives to be provided to businesses to locate in the suburban towns”. These are matters of detail that can be worked out.

We do have a habit in Singapore (and it is part of our culture) to identify what does not work (i.e. the 70% in my hypothetical case). It will be more helpful to identify what “can work” (i.e. the other 30%).

I hope that the authority monitoring this blog will think “out of the box” and contact me.

Unlike the US or Australia, one family can uproot itself to find work in another state or town, chances are we won’t be able to do the same…

Singapore is already so small – each satellite “town” is not self-sufficient like a city say in the US or Australia…a couple is unlikely to find employment in the same town here…

However, I think it is not correct to get distracted from the real crux of the problem – the transportation system is clearly not equipped to handle the mass of people we have now…

I hope that Nizmo and other entrepreneurs can bring the telecenters into reality.

However, there maybe problems with implementation. For example, Nancy’s point on how to decide on who chooses the location closes to his/her workplace and that someone has to filter out firms types (e.g. back-offices) that qualify for a subsidy. Then we will need to find rules to identify several of these gray situations, while worrying whether these same rules have detrimental and unforeseen feedback effects. Cost of administering such policies (subsidies to firms and government revenue loss) will also have to be factored in. Unless there is a huge case of market failure in the property market in Singapore, I rather the government not interfere.

I really like Policy No. 4 and would like to add one idea to it. This solution would address the issue of congestion more directly: build telecentres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecentre) dedicated to businesses/government in our New Towns. These would be offices which have meeting rooms, office suites and other shared complements that any back-office/office based business needs.

Their distinct features would be that
1. Anyone could hotdesk
2. Conference rooms can be booked for a number of time slots.
2. They have features that enable connectivity (e.g. high speed connectivity, VOIP, videoconferencing)
3. They have shared support staff (e.g. receptionist)
4. They have shared common office infrastructure (e.g. printers)
5. Firms/individuals are charged based on time/usage

Advantages
1. A telecentre would always be conveniently located to most Singaporeans if we have one in each New Town centre (Reduce congestion).
2. Companies can indirectly relocate, spend less on relocation cost (helps Policy No. 3) and can relocate quickly.
3. Government would not need to waive stamp duties, legal fees, give incentives to individuals (Policy No. 1 & 2)
4. Smaller firms would be able to use shared office facilities based on need rather than incur heavy investments.

If such an idea is feasible and profitable, why don’t we see entrepreneurs developing such telecentres. I believe that some of the reasons are a high initial development cost and a need of huge economies of scale to make it profitable That is, many companies must be willing to use such facilities even at an early stage. While there is demand for such services, I foresee no one signing up because of lack of understanding of such a service (cultural bias) and possibly the fear that there will be drop in productivity.

If the above is true and yet there are huge welfare gains that could be unlocked, then we have a clearer case of market failure here and there is reason for our government to actively intervene.

Here are some of the proposed steps:
1. Provide low-cost funding to develop such a project.
2. Subsidise the entrepreneur/service provider in the initial stage to lower prices and achieve the critical utilisation level to reduce the time necessary to break-even.
3. Be the first customer (stat boards, union, ministries, GLCs)
4. Educate our workforce to increase producitivity and overcome biases
5. Reduce the cost of broadband in Singapore to lower the cost of connectivity

While many ministries may not be in the CBD, they are still centralised in one location. Hence by moving some operations to telecentres (point 3), they will still be taking the first step in reducing congestion.

Point 4 & 5 are rather broad but I think that they are stumbling blocks to such a solution. I noticed that in a competitiveness report, a lack of educated workforce is cited as the biggest stumbling block for employers in Singapore. Our workforce must be sufficiently equipped to telecommute. The cost of broadband must be sufficiently low to make telecottaging feasible. In the same report, Singaporeans spend about 3% of our income paying for broadband. Many western counterparts pay a smaller percentage and also pay less in nominal terms (after currency conversion). An anti-competition body should study why we are paying more and find solutions.

You hiave identified a sitaution where it is difficult to implement my suggestion..

Can you help me to identify the sitautions where my proposal will be practical? There must be quite a few.

I do not expect my suggestion to apply to 100%. If it can apply to 30%, it will be a great help to reduce traffic congestion.