For example, buses come a lot more frequently in Singapore than in most Western European countries with good public transport (Germany, Netherlands etc), where many buses come once or twice an hour.

Bus stops are also a lot more spaced out in those countries.

Peak hours? That’s worse. Hey, I didn’t know I was going to take the 3rd train because the 1st 2 trains were too full at Lavender on Saturday night! & the train arrival frequency was around 6 minutes!

The main problem is population density. Period. Yet, we are constantly gettin’ more & more foreigners to improve the economy. That’s right. An individual’s living space & comfort takes a backseat far far behind increased income generation through improved economy brought by increased workforce.

What I agree on:
1. Bus size should be catered to the projection on passenger volume. Feeder bus in low volume area should run on mini bus rather than big bus. Take a look at Service 922 and 921 at Bukit Panjang Ring Road, frequency is 30 mins, and the bus is normally just carrying 5-10 passengers, which is a waste of resources. Mini bus is enough to carry that amount of passengers, and probably a frequency of 30 minutes is used. After all, how long does it take for the bus to circle the Bukit Panjang Ring Road?

2. Singapore public transport should operate with regulated revenue instead of profit maximising. I guess this is underway the transport review, but I’m not sure what model they are looking at. Bus Operator (SBS Transit and SMRT) should bid for the route, and their revenue is Cost + Margin as proposed by the bidding process. It is government job (i.e PTC) to look into the competitivenes of the bid without sacrificing the quality. Transport Operator thus, needs to incorporate their projected cost in bidding process (like wages, fuel cost, bus depreciating expenses). This can be done on regular annual review and adhoc basis if fuel cost escalates substantially. This eliminates redundancy cost like for the case of direct competition..

The good point from IRIS:
I find it very helpful. Of course, you need to have your handset configured to access Internet. Once you’ve done it, you only need to access favorites (like in Internet Explorer) to look at estimated bus arrival. Thus, you know when the bus will arrive without having to wait unnessarily long. If I saw the bus is arriving in 13 mins, I can afford to have tea break in coffeeshop nearby.

If one were to examine the structure of our system (i.e the role of the government and that of the government owned companies) the biggest concern would be conflict of interest , especially in the provision of essential public services. No where is this more apparent than in the operation of our public transport system. While we may highlight and argue for the improvement of standards, we have to address the primary issue of conflict of interest.

We can rave and rant about inconsiderate people not filling up the end of buses but to put things in perspective, in the first place aren’t the commuters entitled to seats when they pay?

I agree whole heartedly at suggestions for LTA and planners to look at the picture objectively. We have not even reached the 6 million population put forth by them and yet we already are facing a squeeze everywhere. Can you imagine how it will be like? just drop by Orchard Road on Sunday.

Watthefish

ERP *does* encourage car pooling. The cost of ERP is shared amongst the number of people in a single car, so each person in a fully occupied car pays less than someone in a singly occupied car.

For Listen to the people,
point to point express is good as it eleviates the jam at the MRTs. Again, this option is available to the “regular” operators and hence the higher costs. Try allowing private buses to run it, I am sure it will work

We are spending way too much to have aircon and mobile TV even for feeder buses. This has jacked up the busfares to 70 cents for a 3 stop ride for me in Bedok. Someone is creating all these addons for the benefit of the vendors

Those mini-buses in HK are 14 seaters. It is similar to the premium bus service in Singapore. The trade-off with these mini-buses is higher operation cost so passengers have to pay more. It will need more drivers and use more fuel to transport the same number of passengers at the peak hour.

So, the question is what is the right mix of big and mini buses and how to deploy them during the peak and non-peak hours to get the best service for the passengers and return for the operator.

I agree with your suggestion. It is not efficient to have big buses (such as the double length bus of SMRT) as it takes a longer time for passengers to board and leave the bus. It also occupies more space at the bus stops.

A big bus also means lower frequency and longer waiting time.

In Hong Kong, they use mini-buses. There are more mini-buses which run more frequently and have shorter waiting time. This is more efficient and improve service to commuters.

We have a public transport system that needs to be better managed. It is time for the Land Transport Authority and Public Transport Council to wake up, and see issues from the perspective of the commuters.

As they say the tip of the iceberg.

6.5 million.

way to go.

Lets all cheer our transport operators on.
Pay and Pay, thats the Way.

If they dont profit year after year, so far thanks to the people, I think their gro’th has been extremely good. I hope they get bigger and fatter but must also be juicier bonus.

Service to the Public, indeed.

See, no one is complaining wor.

Spore is excellent and truely 1st world, not 3rd.

most don’t really care about service quality if profit increases. and in this transport industry, consumers are the ones who suffer, just suck thumb and still have to take the public transport to work and getting packed like sardines.