im a student from england researching how disabled people commute to work each day around the world, im currently researching singapore is there any information you could give me regarding this? i read the idea about reserved seats, are there any other problems you noticed i.e. regarding boarding the trains? or are there any other services that they use i.e. taxi’s that are equipt to transport them comfortably and easily? or is it a problem due to cost as explained? any information would be very welcome.

thankyou

heather

If we analyse it carefully, it will be quite clear that the impending increase in public transport fare is apparently designed to benefit (aka profit) the operators again!

1. If any one were to benefit the most from the fare increase by seeing his total fare decreases instead, he must be one who makes many transfers.

2. By and large, those who do not transfer are people travelling the current 67 or 89 cents distance. Once a person makes one trip out on a 67 or 89 cents fare, he’s bound to make at least one more (obviously he needs to return!). So for these people, their increase in fare — assuming only two trips a day, five days only — is 4 cents x 2 trips x 5 days = 40 cemts per week. Strangely, this amount of increase is not included in any group in the breakdown of amounts of increase / decrease per week (the max. increase as given by the authority was 23 cents per week!)! Should we trust the data presented to explain the increase in fare?

3. In the above cases, the increase in fare per trip is 4 / 67 = 5.97%, or 4 / 89 = 4.49%! The operator’s cap of 3% increaase is made to be borne by these short-distance travellers?

4. In trying to convince the public that most people are seeing no change or a reduction, comparisons are made using new and old 1 transfer, or 2 transfers cases.

Perhaps a more REAListic comparison would be as in example following (this is a real situation):
From Bt Batok to SCGS, there is ONLY one direct service: service 66. The current fare is $1.09. From Oct 1, it would be $1.13 if increase by 4 cents, or $1.18 if 9 cents (representing 3.67% or 8.27% increase).
However, if one obeys the highly touted transferring ideal, one could make a $(0.67 + 0.89 – 0.25) = $1.31 trip. From Oct 1, it would become $(0.67 + 0.04 + 0.89 + 0.04 – 0.40) = $1.24.
Simply comparing the new transfer-fare of $1.24 with the old transfer-fare of $1.31, there is a reason to scream about a REDUCTion of 7 cents.
BUT, be REAListic and compare the new transfer-fare of $1.24 to the new direct of $1.13 (if increase is 4 cents) or even the higher $1.18 (if increase is 9 cents), one wonders who is benefitting? the commuter or the public transport operator?

Take another (hypothetical, but pretty likely) situation:
If the journey is a transfer of .89 x 2 – .25 = $1.53
From Oct 1, it would be (.89 + .04) x 2 – .4 = $ 1.46 (reduction indeed compared to old transfer-rate)
That same if taken on a direct trip could incur an old fare of $1.28 (max. of 14 fare stages)
and from Oct 1, a new direct of $1.32 (iincrease 4 cents) or $1.37 (increase 9 cents).
If the increase is 4 cents, the new direct fare is cheaper than the new transfer-fare; even if it is a 9 cents increase, it is still cheaper.

Would this cause the fare increase (expected) next year to be even higher?

5. The transferring system is worth considering IF and ONLY IF when any commuter travels from one point to another, there are some 3 or 4 options available to choose from to get to his final destination (because waiting time is very long for any one service). Else he could possibly collect spider webs waitiing for an only one connecting service to his destination.

6. Furthermore, we have yet to hear any further news regarding extending the electronic boards announcing the arrival times of the buses at the bus stops (as currently seen in Orchard area) to ALL bus stops. If this is done, commuters would be better able to plan his own trips.

1) How about increasing the width of the trains? A lot of space could be created by a 50cm increase in width. Of course, this will require infrastructural changes, especially in the tunnels, but there is an upper limit to increasing train frequencies. The costs will be tremendous, but once-off. Also, the manpower costs involved in frequency increases may be quite significant in the long run.

2) Day/Week/Month/Annual tickets should be offered at huge discounts compared to single trip tickets, which can be more expensive for people who don’t use the public transport so frequently, like foreign visitors. This will also encourage people to stick to trains and buses – people with such tickets would hesitate in digging into their wallets to pay for cabs. Commuters shouldn’t be penalized by paying more for transfers, which are often due to bad transport route plannings. We are penalized enough by the senseless meanderings!

3) There should be an upper limit in public transport vs car travelling time between destinations that meet some travel frequency quota. Bus routes should be adjusted accordingly to stay within this upper limit. This will help alleviate the huge discrepancies mentioned by DL.

Wat is unique is their mini-buses which is somesort of a “fix-route” cabs which allows one to go to another location fairly quickly and not going thru some meanderous fixed routes.

And furthermore on CNY Eve, NYE and major holidays, their trains/buses run 24hrs. People dont have to be afraid of not having transport to go home.

Another unique feature in HK, is that at almost any time/place, you can hail a cab no hassles at all. You dont hear of cabby drivers there not picking up passengers at all.
Whereas in Singapore its more of a norm than exception.

Its this integration thats allows and encourage HK pple to take public transport.

In singapore, we have the direct opp…paying lip service to let pple to take public transport, bragging about how good our transport system is but sweeping all the problems under the carpet.

E.g A trip taking public transport from Yew Tee to J/West takes 45mins (inclusive of waiting time) Feeder Bus –> interchange –> transfer to a Train –> Transfer to another train at J/E –> take another bus, whereas taking a cab or driving takes only 10mins via KJE.

Given this options and the ability to do both which would one choose?

If we need pple to give up private transport, we really have to rethink our network work i.e. to cut down on travelling time and transporting people one place to another place more efficiently?

Do we really wana a wheel and spoke network or a direct form of design?

Can forummers, who had spent sometime in HK, please share with us their experience.

gahmen not honest & sincere.

like Lee Hsien Loong said, pple in Singapore like frogs in water being slowly heated up…………SMRT/SBS increased fares by few % every yr & hv been making huge profits.

The main problem, as someone has already pointed out, with the
public transportation is PROFITEERING. There should be a certain
kind of limitations imposed by law upon all public transports as
to the amount of annual profits that they can have and the number
of shareholders, type of shareholders, and number of shares per
shareholder. Otherwise, the big hidden or disguised “crocodiles”
and “wolves-in-white” would continue to manipulate and “manage”
the system to safeguard their own selfish interests.

To me, as I see it, this is a new kind of corruption, which is more serious than the openly perceivable type of corruptions,
emerging and starting to take roots over the past 15 years -
starting with NKF, or course, and the Charity Sector. being
the unlucky ones to be exposed first.

I am not accusing anyone of corruption, but if the hat fits
so be it!

Our public transport problems are due to too many private cars on the road, and lack of planning of road buildup to meet the private car population growth. If people are willing to give up driving private cars and take up public transport and the public transport companies increase their passenger carrying capacity, the problem can be solved.

For this waterway transport idea to work, people need to be willing to take up this form of public transportation with feeder bus support from some service providers. The second issue is whether the waterway is really that free enough to allow such service. Another question is whether it is really effective for some heart-lander residents travel to the terminals and then from the terminal to their final destination.

The queue lines I was referring to are not actually queue lines, but lines telling people to stand in such a way so as to allow passengers to alight first.

Here’s a photo I found through Google:

http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~nguyenvu/images/VT_photos/singapore/2002_12-02/356_Waiting_Raffle_MRT.jpg

As you can see, it’s not working very well. Can’t imagine how bad it’d get during peak hours.

1) bad road/traffic planning – frankly some of the congestions on the road are really created by bad road planning. This is being pretty micro here but i believe will solve the larger problem. Eg slow traffic on Orchard Rd turning into Cairnhill (after Paragon) basically because we have cars turning into Cairnhill/buses turning back to Orch/Pedestrian crossing. Another eg slow traffic on the short stretch of PIE (toward Tuas) where thomson joins in n steven exits. Of course at this point of time, solutions may range from easy ones (pedestrian directed to a bridge across traffic) to drastic ones (seal off entrance/exits like the old Kallang Bahru exit into PIE).

In any case, this LTA revamp presents a good opportunity to relook at remodelling existing roads and plan new ones too.

2) Commercial & administrative satellite town – When you have human traffic converging into one single point, you will definitely get congestion at that single point, during what we know as peak hours. Instead of furiously developing the CBD and building more highrise building to accomodate more offices (or for purpose of getting a pretty skyline), re-direct the traffic away from CBD. The govt is currently doing this but more could be done.

We can always start by moving governmental administrative offices away from CBD and centralised them somewhere else (if you let me decide, Tuas is a good plc, what with the open space, undeveloped transportation modes and numerous companies).

Naturally, those businesses closely related will also shift.

3) construction, construction, construction – unfortunately along with the development boom as well as transport revamp, many construction works is currently affecting the flow of traffic. Those people who travel frequently on roads around Circle Line will know very well. I do not foresee traffic flow to ease out in near future (aka ERP will continue to go up)
And unfortunately i think there is no solutions on this.

1. Peak hours should not be

Monday to Friday, between 8 to 9 am and 5.15 to 6.30 pm

Saturday, between 8.15 to 9 am and 1 to 2.30 pm

as of now. It MUST be lengthen to at least 2 hours to accommodate people who left early for work; people who run errands after working hours etc. (No wonder I still find a crowded train at 9pm on weekdays).

2. The running times of the trains and buses should extend to 1am in the morning. Currently we are having Cinderella syndrome in which everyone tries to take the last train or bus by the stroke of midnight (even before that as most last train or bus will leave the station before midnight). Or else they will have to face the mercy of the taxi and their increased midnight charge.

3. During the launch of the NEL, SMRT scrapped the service of several bus routes stating that it was a waste of resources and forcing everyone to take the train. Currently there are no bus that travel from punggol directly to orchard road.

We commuters demand a choice for transport alternatives (LTA if you can take the tab…)

4. Sometimes people rush in the train carriages due to the fact that they do not know when the carriage door closes. It will be a good improvement to place a indicator on the door that shows that the carriage door will close in 3.. 2.. 1.. second.

5. Another way to prevent congestion from the carriage door is that to designate 1 carriage door to be the entry point and another to be the exit point. (Very much like the bus concept). However, it will be the best to have another door installed on the carriage to allow entry to the train carriage only.

6. Every year the public transport companies apply to PTC for increase in their fare to commuters. However, PTC had approved their price hike despite that there are no improvements to their level of service. I considered MobileTV to be a hinderance than imporvement.

As of now as many of us do agree that the problems in our current public transport system having

“· Overcrowded buses and trains;
· Inadequate trip planning facilities;
· Lack of genuine competition, resulting in ever-increasing fares”

shouldn’t we commuters to be justified with a fare reduction to improve our confidence with the monopolistic transport companies?

7. The PTC have an easy job of approving a fare hike or not, shouldn’t they conduct a review that the public transport companies will have a fare reduction if they do not meet their level of service?

Is it because there are so many calls to have transparency in the PTC system and include members into the PTC whom do not have vested interested to the transport companies?

8. Recently I seen the new bus fleet service 100 to be a disadvantage to the commuters on the road. I noticed that the number “100″ sign on the bus to be very small and taking a small space on the side of the notice although lighted. As compared to the old sign, I can hardly make out the number of the service until it is “near” the bus stop. If I can’t make out the number, I persumed that the older folks can’t make out the number as well.

I don’t know if I should vote for Raymond Lim in the next election, but he is truly a waste of our taxpayers money. But I like his “flag the bus early campaign”, it is the icing on the cake on our current public system.