From Ng E Jay’s blog, sgpolitics:
Why is there such a large discrepancy between the value of contracts awarded to Singapore Technologies Electronics for installation of platform screen doors at SMRT train stations and at Taiwan’s Neihu Line?
It was reported in the Straits Times on 13 Aug that the first sets of platform screen doors had been erected at Pasir Ris MRT station.
Despite repeated calls for platform screen doors to be installed at all above-ground MRT stations to prevent the obvious tragedies, the Government chose to place the lives of commutes second to cost considerations, and agreed to this suggestion only when costs had come down due to the global downturn.
This pussyfooting by the Government resulted in 31 unnecessary deaths in 2007, or around one death every 12 days, as a result of accident or suicide on the MRT tracks.
Read the rest of the article on sgpolitics.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
$3.5 million per station……. Assuming there’s 6 train cabins x 3 doors per cabin x 2 rail lines = 36 screen doors to be built for each station.Are they saying that one door is going to cost us almost a million bucks each?
Or is there some creative accounting going on by our elites to make the books look good for TH?
Because they need to help ST Elect to boost its bottomline. Why ST Elect and not any other company? GIC helps GIC… there is no such thing as transparency lah.
The cost would be passed back to commuters anyway.
Mistake in my calculation……cost should be almost $100k per door. but isn’t that still excessive?
well the same thing happened when Prof Tommy Koh made the argument for handicapped access for public transport. The then SMRT head vehemently opposed it citing the costs incurred. Then suddenly govt approved it and we have ramps and lifts in MRT station. Did SMRT lose money? No. So only if elites say, then only govt will do.
Nit-pick time. :-)
You should count number of platforms, not number of stations. Jurong East have 6 platforms. (2 under construction currently.) Both Tanah Merah and Ang Mo Kio each have 4. The rest have 2. Total: 44 platforms. (The original article counted stations, not platforms.)
Each train have 6 cars with 4 doors each. (Not 3 doors.) (See, for example: http://warrenssingapore.com/singapore/life-in-singapore/mrt-trains-in-singapore/)
So, cost per door is: $126,000,000 / 44 / 6 / 4 / 2, which is slightly less than $60,000 per door, not the $100,000 per door figure that you’ve worked out to be.
Thank you. The mathematics part of my brain can now sleep better. :-)
” In 2005, ST Electronics was awarded a S$10.5 million contract to design, supply and install platform screen doors for the 12-station Neihu Line, due to be completed by the 3rd quarter of 2009. This works out to be slightly under S$1 million per station.
Compare this cost to what LTA is paying ST Electronics to build platform screen doors at SMRT train stations — S$126 million for 36 stations, which come up to S$3.5 million per station. ”
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=3516#more-3516
If you compare on a per-door basis, it is roughly the same cost. Singapore: $59k per door, Taipei Neihu Line: $54k per door.
(Singapore: 88 platforms, 6 cars per platform, 4 doors per car. Taipei Neihu Line: 24 platforms, 4 cars per platform, 2 doors per car.)
You’ll have to factor in that Singapore’s stations are already in operation, while Taipei’s work was done on stations that were not opened yet.
Oops. I’ve made mistakes too. Singapore’s project have 80 platforms, not 88.
That works out to be $65k per door, versus $54k per door in Taipei.
While it is fair to ask for an explanation, we should also take note that the two projects are quite different in nature.
The Neihu Line was a new project under construction. The installation of the screen doors and the electrical works can be done 24 hours a day and the circuit layout can be streamlined during the design stage.
On the other hand, installing the screen doors in existing platforms in Singapore means that work can only be done during the night time after the operation hour. Circuit layout also need to work around existing system.
Another point to take note is that the Neihu line is kind of LRT style system so the platforms are likely to be shorter. See for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neihu_Line_(TRTS)
Yes, it is quite distasteful to note that PAP rejected the idea of installing the screen doors citing cost and technical reasons few years back only to agree to do it now.
Leong Heng Cheong, sarek_home,
The reasons you have raised concerning why they could be a cost discrepancy sounds fair, but IMO i don’t think it can fully account for the 250% cost discrepancy.
250% cost discrepancy means LTA is paying 3.5 times more per station. Do all the different factors mentioned justify that?
Now, if only LTA will give more details on the matter!
E-Jay
E-Jay, if you count per door, instead of per station, you get a much less difference in cost: 1.2 times. I suspect your per-station count is not exactly fair, as the two projects — on a per station basis — are significantly of different scales.
Singapore’s 24 doors per platform versus Neihu’s 8 doors per platform: Even if the raw cost is not exactly 3 times more expensive, surely you are not suggesting that they should be anywhere equivalent in cost per station, are you?
(A small nit-pick, you also should be counting Singapore’s project as 40 stations, instead of 36, due to additional platforms in Jurong East, Ang Mo Kio, and Tanah Merah. If I read Wikipedia correctly, all stations on the Neihu line have only 2 platforms each.)
(If Singapore decides to add screen doors to LRT systems, then we have a better apples-to-apples comparison.)
In truth, there *may* be a discrepancy, but your arguments definitely doesn’t support this hypothesis.
To 12) Heng-Cheong Leong:
I guess your explanation is as good as it can get until LTA is willing to disclose more; such as economies of scale, extra-charges for working after off-peak hours, etc…
11) Ng E-Jay on August 14th, 2009 4.40 pm
Leong Heng Cheong, sarek_home,
The reasons you have raised concerning why they could be a cost discrepancy sounds fair, but IMO i don’t think it can fully account for the 250% cost discrepancy.
Those reasons are just starter.
In any engineering project, there is huge number of requirements and issues that can make a big difference in the total cost.
The reasons given so far certainly cannot account for the cost differences. But they certainly provide enough reason to show that raising the issue purely based on cost per station is over-simplistic.
It would have been better if more research is done before raising the question. Like factoring what Leong Heng Cheong pointed out to make the article contains more balanced facts for readers to ponder on.
The reason for the tragedies is not because there were no platform glass doors in the first place, but rather because of the general social working environment of Singapore that forces certain people to have suicidal thoughts. I think the erection of the platform glass doors may deter people from jumping off the train platforms only to a certain extent. The real root of the problem is society as a whole. Instead of spending $100+ million on platform glass doors, why not spend $100+ million on reinforcing our social infrastructure instead?
Why so expensive? You just have to know which company is awarded to do the job and the answers are all there.
Just like the case of the renovation contract awarded to our museum, some 20millions for design consultant fee???? hey hey! what happen now? so quiet liao!
Yes, it is quite distasteful to note that PAP rejected the idea of installing the screen doors citing cost and technical reasons few years back only to agree to do it now.
PAP don’t even want to built MRT in the first place.
It is Ong Teng Cheong who pain stately persuade them to built MRT.
#12) Heng-Cheong Leong on August 14th, 2009 5.03 pm
Thanks for pointing out the calculations of the actual cost per door. I admit that my calculations were quite inaccurate and may have portrayed LTA in a negative light. The costs seems more reasonable after your clarifications.
TOC – Can I request to for post #1 and 3 to be removed? Thanks.
Please stop this project and find a cheaper option AND give the savings back to the customer
pussyfooting seems like the right word to use, yes.
Singapore now very funny. LTA installing platform screen doors for smrt. shouldn’t initiative taken by the respective companies? No wonder people all mistaken people wearing white shirts as PAP. haha.
They used ST, subsidiary of Temasek. Inefficiency is a consequent of a monopoly.
you guys should go work for audit firms! heheh
After the screen door installed, will Singaporean complain that the platform is hot as the screen door block wind blow ? If the screen door is installed to prevent suicide more than accident then it is something seriously wrong with the country.
Daniel, without this huge project then how would you think they can just move hundreds of millions around even during this bad reccession time.
The profit made at St returns to govt.
it boast their share price and therefore the bonus of the TH CEO etc and the minister salary.
As simple as that.
“It would have been better if more research is done before raising the question. Like factoring what Leong Heng Cheong pointed out to make the article contains more balanced facts for readers to ponder on.”
i think u set too high a standard for us lower mortals.
i suspect u are someone from lta or st eng drawing a big fat pay check.
if so it is ur duty to explain in detail to us tax paying lower mortals on why the descrepancy and not to question on why we never check this check that etc.
IT IS UR JOB. NOT OURS. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK.
18) noname on August 14th, 2009 6.26 pm
“”Yes, it is quite distasteful to note that PAP rejected the idea of installing the screen doors citing cost and technical reasons few years back only to agree to do it now.”"
“PAP don’t even want to built MRT in the first place.
It is Ong Teng Cheong who pain stately persuade them to built MRT.”
We know SMRT is profitable.
To me, glass door is required and has a good purpose .
The only issue we should focus on is TRANSPARENCY.
While people are trying to advocate TRUST and no need for more opposition party members in the house, I feel that a referendum should be held to settle this once and for all. A referendum by ALL adults in the absolute sense. No walkovers.
We you dun know something, how can you ……
The PSD is a tempered glass screen wall with doors openings to match the train door openings. The cost is not about doors but more abouthe entire screen wall.
Singapore:
40 stations x 2 platforms per station x 140m per platform = approx 11.2 km
Neihu
10 stations x 2 platforms per station x 93m per platform = approx 2km
Singpore’s total length for this project is exceeds 5 times more than Neihu
Singapore Technologies contracts has always been over inflated. Especially within the government and military. Just another case of the left hand passing cash to their right hand.
Election coming, must show somethings to the people that they are working. Please don’t be fool by them. Stick to our guts and vote them out.
ref psot #30
The cost of retrofitting the PSD is borned by govt not SMRT.
Cost of fitting out PSD on an operational systems substantially higher than a new one, as in Neihu.
Assuming Neihu uses a 4 car train system vs SG’s 6 cars train system in NS EW lines
Got to say that the barriers may prevent suicides at MRT Stations as well as cause accidents if passengers are caught between the barrier and a moving train when too many passengers rush to board and train accidentally moves off.
Preventing suicides at MRT Stations does not stop a suicide-intended person from committing suicide, the intender will resort to other methods.
From the comments, it seemed that the Cost involved is quite reasonable (in comparison with Taiwan) however, 126 million SIN Dollars is a huge sum that if and when used to help the needies may actually be more purposeful and not cause inconveniences that are likely to be caused by the erections of barriers at all the In-use Stations.
patriot.
I am sceptical for this project. When ST makes money; Temasek makes money; Straits Times will say Temasek out-performs Warren Buffet.
My humble assessment is that metal barricade or railing is better than tempered glass:
1. Cheaper
2. More air-flow [we are living in tropics in case we forget]
3. Cheaper to maintain
4. Who is going to pay for this costs
What is the meaning of 126 million, it is every family pays $126.
[126m/4m people x 4 pax per family]
38) watchman
how do you make the railings open and close?
stainless steel barriers will make the station resemble a zoo.
31) Mr.E
Public project tenders are open tenders and the results are posted in the public domain. ST has to go thru the same process to be awarded the PSD job.
http://www.gebiz.gov.sg/
32) Yang
No need to use trhis $100+ million project as an election carrot as there is already a $6 billion Circle line , and another $5 billion Downtown line under construction.
37) patriot
correction:
people with suicidal intentions are not all needies, and not all chose to die the terrible way under the train (although media coverage actaully increases the incidents)
each suicide incident will cause many hours of train disruption and cost hundred of thousand of manhours lost. (daily ridership exceeds 1.5 million rides)
assuming 300,000 passengers affected x $10 per hour x 3 hours = $10 million per incident at the very least, as unlike bus breakdowns which are localised, train disruption is line wide.
and there will be accidental cases.
if you are the first one nearest to the track, a crowd surge will push you into the tracks. so for safety, PSDs are a good thing to have.
the erections of barriers at all the In-use Stations it does not cause inconveniences as it is done off service hours.
Heng-Cheong Leong,
thank you for bring up the mathematical side of things. however, there is still an issue of TIME. The taiwan project is in 2005 and we are comparing it with a REDUCED price (due to global crisis) NOW…
What TOC should bring up that will make the PSD project look like small change is the cost of building the Marina Coastal Expressway which cost twice of and is half the length of Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway.
MCE $4 billion for 5 km fully underground
KPE $1.8 billion for 10km (out of 12 km) underground
Why last time take bus 15 cents now 60cents?
Why last time meepok $1.50 now $3.50?
Matar wear shorts last time what.
Why tee shirts in Phuket so cheap?
Why toiletries in Bangkok so cheap?
Why mineral water in Switzerland so expensive?
Why I rather drink beer/wine in Europe than Coca cola?
Different places different value systems what.
Currency different, culture different, government different.
Simple logic.
You think the savings from the platform doors in TW will go back to the people’s wallet??
People have, you also want to have…
ok lah, now TW got cyclone hurricane, do you want to put up your hand and ask, “Why I don’t have here? I also want!”
Tsk, Tsk. Be contented with the little things, see the big picture don’t sweat the small stuff.
The govt is doing all she can to ensure Singapore continual growth and stability and people’s welfare. Pity that some here still complain-king the typical Singaporean way. Really “si bei pai tan” ! (hokkien meaning “very hard to earn money”)
:)
It’s interesting to see that railings are installed on the viaduct tracks but no platform doors or railings are installed at the station platform. Maintenance staff’s once in a blue moonwalk on the tracks seems to have more safety concern to SMRT than our daily commuters.
Corruption at it’s best….
hi Kopitiamapek,
post #36 on August 15th, 2009 11.41 pm
“how do you make the railings open and close?
stainless steel barriers will make the station resemble a zoo.”
we have discussed this before haven’t we? in place of glass (framed doors), perforated steel or aluminium sheets can be used. the frame essentially remained the same, steel framed with rubber seals & rubber bumpers where the 2 doors meet when closed.
weight differences will depend on the grade of metal, in this case stainless steel of most grades will surely weigh more than aluminium of similiar grade. if aluminum is chosen, it will not rust, but a thicker sheet will be required as its weaker than stainless steel.
also in the event of a bomb blast, steel sheets do not shatter, additional safety consideration. i do not believe (i am not in the know) the glass used for the doors are blast proof or shatter resistant, tempered glass do shatter only less prone.
here is a link of a series of images of perforated metal sheets,
http://www.sureflowequipment.com/custom-engineered/perforated_metal_mesh.gif
hi Patriot,
post #34, on August 15th, 2009 11.05 pm
technically speaking the doors should have been installed when the stations were built as costs were lower years back. raw materials costs less & no extra work was needed back then, which results an aditional in construction cost (retrofitting).
its a pity the lack of safety consideration & foresight, not to install the doors when the staions were built. :(
i am not sure about Taiwan’s cost in comparison, did they also install the doors at a later stage?
the only pont i disagree with you is that money for installing the doors should be channeled to helping the needy or those with financial difficulty. must see our 1st world govt piriority is where lah. help needy? when hell freezes over?
49) Gary
52) mice is nice
Open platforms were norm in train stations .
If you look at the station in advance countries, PSD were not a norm, even in underground stations, at the time our first train line was built.
Unlike colder countries where airconditioning was not a necessity, SG’s humid climate makes it necessary to have aircon in the underground stations.
With aircondtioning, the “piston effect” of trains pulling out of stations will suck the aircon from the stations, and as such, you end up airconditioning the entire tunnel. So PSD were put to prevent this.
Thus, when Sg built the first underground stations, the PSD door were put in place primarily for saving of aircon bills. (btw, the aircon in the trains are from the energy generated by the brakes of the trains)
I guess they never expected so many people chose to throw themselves under the train.
There were lots of nosie made in the past to ask HDB to intall grilles at all flats corridors to prevent suicide. But doing this causes a new problem for fire escape and aesthetics.
While it is easy to make noise, it is harder to balance competing needs.
51) mice is nice
Yes, you can make the PSD of any chosen material and make it work.
Glass is aesthetically more pleasing, being transparent it creates a less castrophobic environment and provides the visual connect for passengers in the train and those on the platform.
As for being bomb proof, both glass and steel will be ripped into flying shrednels in the event of a bomb blast causing dreadful harm to passengers.
The CD train station are designed to withstand a direct bomb hit form outside, but not within.
To have blast proof doors, visualise the door in a typical HDB store room that is a CD shelter, and triple that thickness and weight. If you have seen a bank vault door, that will be roughly the idea. And the walls along the plafiorm wil need to be of thick reinforced concrtete.
The trains itself are also not bomb proof. There are no such trains in existence. I think a bomb proof train would be very interesting and probably be too heavy to even move.
Hi mice is nice #47:
me is of the opinion that the barrier installations are not neccessary if they are just to prevent suicides. Other than being an obstacle and obstruction to passengers and airflows, they could prove dangerous too, which I commented earlier.
Frankly, as for the cost comparison with Taiwan, I just took the closeness of the cost readings(figure/sum) and also approximated the living standard as guides without very technical knowledge with regard materials used and workmanships entailed. Commonsense makes me think that material costs could vary greatly.
patriot
hi kopitiamApek,
my point about metal doors is that metal do not fragment like glass to cause more injury or even death than glass would have. not that perforated metal is blast proof.
i agree with you that glass PSDs makes more sense to seal the aircon-ed cool air within the stations to reduce electricity consumption. & to a certain extent makes a place less clustrophobic. on ground level or above ground stations (which this article is based on) the piston effect is not as pronounced.
pros of glass PSD (above ground stations):
. more light can pass through, save lighting costs
. less clustrophobic
. reduce noise (for double layed glass)
… did i miss out any?
pros of perforated metal PSD (above ground stations):
. blocks **% of heat during noon
. lets air flow more freely
. does not shatter
. in theory lighter than glass with perforations, less weight, less electricity useage?
. did i miss out any?
eh, dun bring the topic underground leh, the writer is talking about stations on the ground level like Bishan or stations above ground…