The following is National Solidarity Party’s media release on the debate over our public transport system.
–
There has been much debate over our public transport system lately. Public unhappiness over fare increases stems from dissatisfaction over the level of service in our public transport, primarily over issues of under-capacity and the lack of any alternatives for the bulk of our population.
The Workers’ Party proposes the nationalization of public transport. The People’s Action Party on the other hand advocates the status-quo. But it should be apparent that the status-quo is not working. The PAP needs to snap out of its complacency.
The WP’s proposal to nationalize public transport however would not solve the problem of under-capacity. It is unrealistic to expect state-run organizations, usually large and cumbersome, to be able to respond speedily to rapid changes in demand. We need only look at our public housing, public hospitals and polyclinics which are similarly plagued by under-supply to realize that.
What is needed then is more competition. Theoretically, we have two companies “competing” against each other in bus and MRT services. However, since there is no duplication in their area of service, commuters have no real alternatives. Thus we effectively have two monopolies.
First, we need to consider bus services and MRT services separately.
MRT Services
It is not practical to expect full privatization and competition in MRT services due to the infrastructure and huge capital required.
But partial competition can be introduced. The government can retain ownership of the major fixed assets – tracks, stations and trains – and sub-contract out the operations to private companies via tender. SMRT and SBS Transit should not have certainty of operating rights, but rather would have to tender for the rights at regular intervals, in competition with each other and with other companies that may be set up by former employees or foreign operators. Each line (North-South, East-West, North-East, Circle, Downtown, various LRTs) can be tendered out separately or bundled. Tenders will be awarded based on service levels and cost. The Government charges fares at a level sufficient to pay the sub-contractors.
Unfortunately, while this arrangement provides incentives for efficiency and cost control, capacity would still be determined by the Government and hence cannot be as responsive as private operators. It is an inherent weakness of the MRT system that capacity cannot be increased rapidly. We therefore need to rely on our bus services to be more responsive.
Bus Services
Bus services should be liberalized. We need multiple private bus operators who are smaller, nimbler and profit-seeking, and who will respond faster to changes in demand. If demand increases rapidly, profit-seeking entities will eagerly increase supply just as rapidly. Slow movers will lose market share.
Routes should be centrally managed by a transport authority, and every private operator, regardless of size, should be free to apply for licenses to ply any of the routes, making their decisions based on business considerations. Operators will either ply existing established routes or propose new ones to the transport authority. Bus services may also duplicate MRT routes to provide indirect competition to MRT services, and to meet demand in excess of MRT capacity. Capacity in bus services can be expanded far more rapidly than that of MRT services.
Let market forces determine the supply and set the fares. The government’s role in bus services should be limited to:
- setting the standards for safety and service,
- managing routes,
- disseminating information on bus routes and ridership numbers,
- gathering commuter feedback, and
- licensing.
In addition, the Government should fulfill its social responsibilities by providing the necessary infrastructure and subsidies for
- non-profitable but essential routes (which can be funded by bus licensing fees),
- full-time students, elderly and disabled, and
- low-income earners and families.
With this model, we can move towards a more responsive transportation sector driven by market forces, with the incentives to innovate and cut costs, while meeting our social obligation of ensuring affordability for those with lower incomes.
Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
National Solidarity Party
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
Fair to let in more private bus operators, but in that case, private bus operators must be able to choose which routes they want to serve, and what price to charge. Government should not interfere then. It is also then not the government’s responsiblity to provide any subsidy for non-profitable route. Those living along the non-profitable routes should solve their own problem. Any maintenace of roads & other infrastructure should also not be the government responsiblity or our taxes will rise.
The only subsidy government should provide is discount fares for elderly and disabled. Students & low income earners should not receive any subsidy, or this will blow the government budget and our taxes will rise.
Alvin> If no subsidy then every bus operator will ply the profitable routes. Maybe just the ones for the rich areas?
Get real.
Get real, NSP. Naive proposal. A liberalized bus system is going to be problematic.
Which companies are going to run the not-so-profitable and not-so-in-demand routes like those that run within housing estates?
A nationalized transport system makes sure this gets taken care of.
A more feasible model for MRT would be follow Taiwan’s Build operate transfer (BOT) model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build-operate-transfer
Build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) or build-operate-transfer (BOT) is a form of project financing, wherein a private entity receives a concession from the private or public sector to finance, design, construct, and operate a facility stated in the concession contract. This enables the project proponent to recover its investment, operating and maintenance expenses in the project.
Due to the long-term nature of the arrangement, the fees are usually raised during the concession period. The rate of increase is often tied to a combination of internal and external variables, allowing the proponent to reach a satisfactory internal rate of return for its investment.
Bugger. This was my idea.
Sec Gen tua kee la.
good
Good try but the NSP obviously does not understand how MRT works. Tenders are already done for operation of various lines. In effect, what the NSP is proposing is what the Govt will argue, is already happening. Example, just google “downtown line tender”. The NSP did not do its homework.
The requirement for structural separation will also come with cost. In effect, it will re-nationalise the assets but not the profits that goes with it. Comes back to current situation. Complete re-nationalisation is therefore the only alternative wrt MRT.
As to bus services, NSP needs to refine its arguments. The PTC allows small bus operators. Those who take bus to work & back knows that there are private bus services.
The liberalisation that NSP is targeting refers to basic bus services. Again, it needs to explain better why the current segregation doesn’t work. Otherwise, the policy is merely brushed aside. It also doesn’t explain why nationalisation is wrong in this case. Indeed, Singapore operated very well with a nationalised bus service for many years. One of the biggest govt arguments for defending the basic bus service is that it is more efficient. Arguably correct. Nationalisation does not contradict this argument and instead uses it to support why nationalisation is preferred. Efficiency however is not addressed in NSP’s simplistic proposal. If it is serious, it would show what is the accurate level of bus service that is efficient and why the current structure is not. I don’t think it can do so.
So again, the argument against nationalisation is still not proved.
Alvin Chua
This kind of proposal to allow competition in the manner as suggested is like throwing the spanner into the works to compound the problem altogether in a temper over people’s unhappiness with the constant fare increases by monopolistic GLCs.
Please note transportation is a public service for which citizens pay direct and indirect taxes of all kinds.
It is essential to take ownership of the problem of monopolistic fare increases which drive up costs of living.
Government should serve the interest of the people who expect the government to provide public services without any excuse.
It will be preposterous for government to be hand in glove with the GLCs to go for profiteering in such provision of public services.
In particular since the congestion is largely attributable to the large influx of foreign labor, it is only right that government bear the costs of any increased costs and not expect the people to be penalized for it.
Has not PM Lee apologized over the rising costs of living in the GE 2011, and promised change?
Is he not going to honour his word and do something to tackle this perpetual tendency to increase fees for all the public services.
WHOAH! This is groudbreaking! NSP Stops becoming a partisan nusiance and starts behaving like a real political party.
First up is a pat on the back for Hazel Poa for moving in the right direction.
Ok for all those people who do not understand what is going on, NSP suggestion is basically to model the bus operations after our taxi style model.
However, this is not feasible since no operator in their right mind will want to ply public routes of the ulu ulu parts of Singapore like Tuas.
This means that LTA will have to offer routes in package rather than to allow operators to pick and choose their routes. I do not believe in subsidizing operations for lonely routes.
For MRT operations, again this is a good suggestion. But the bid should not be based on how much the operator is going to offer.
Instead the operator need to propose their fares and service standards based on a fix rate for operating rights set by LTA. This will prevent a Singtel vs Starhub episode where the winning bidder has to earn back the cost of a high bid by charging high prices.
The bidding process needs to be transparent to the public so that everyone can view beforehand what is on offer.
@Mark Lim
Lol, you better ask the Taiwanese what they think of their gov first.
I like the high speed rail in Taiwan but you know that project is leaking $$ even though it does alot of public good.
Black Hei said “However, this is not feasible since no operator in their right mind will want to ply public routes of the ulu ulu parts of Singapore like Tuas.”
I agree with him.
NSP trying to act big, shoot WP somemore. Go home and drink more milk first, NSP.
@Robert Teh
Few private entities can afford to buy and manage SMRT, so it should remain status quo. But bus service should be fully privatised. Let in any number of operators, let them decide which routes to ply, what fares to charge. The government will have one less headache. For those routes not served by bus, let those people solve their own problems. The government can’t be expected to be responsible for all of people’s problems. No harm for public transport to become fully privatised, if possible.
Alvin Chua
private bus operators must be able to choose which routes they want to serve, and what price to charge. not the government’s responsiblity to provide any subsidy for non-profitable route
………….
well done alvin chua… when you drive a texi..below cost can asked government to tambar mey? you think what? charity texi services?
pau hong char meant pau hong char…
~PEROD~
wei wei this idea was MINE original idea stolen from hongkong mini bus services..
now regardin allocations of rights and route.. hav you peeps ever seen paran wrapped in newspapers?
liuterwah did that so is cho yongfart..
1st come 1st chionged lark
onced quota filled…the competitions av to find 2nd routes and so forth
onced again..may i POLITELY remind lta not to kaypo…
Do you know the difference between contestibility and competition?
The tendering process is just a show. No Transport Minister will revoke the licences of PTOs like SBS-Transit, Comfort-Delgro or SMRT. If it happens, fares would soar to the moon because PTOs would have to factor in uncertainties. What are they going to do with the fixed assets?
Will expanding the MRT system solve congestion problems?
Well, unless the govt. is going to build new lines parallel to existing ones. But are they? Even if they were crazy enough to do it, it will take years for the new lines to complete. Do you expect us to shove it and chug along for the next 5 to 10 years?
The problem stems from poor planning by the govt. Our train stations have been configured for 6-carriage trains and there is no flexibility to add more carriages. There is a limit to increasing the frequencies of trains. Hence, the answer is to expand the bus system. Nationalisation is obviously a blatant unrobust argument. It is a futile exercise that leads us nowhere because it won’t solve congestion, increase efficiency nor drive down fares.
Already the trains are packed. Yet under a planned system, our buses are still bringing people from all over the town to the MRT stations to jam up the system. It’s amazingly crazy! The immediate solution is so obvious – change some of the bus feeder services to ones which bring the passengers to their final destinations.
Is there free competition?
As mentioned by NSP, obviously not! Moreover, adding more buses will not increase competition. But adding more bus operators will.
What the hell is “population growth outpacing capacity”?
It really means someone is sleeping on his/her job.
No one to operate unprofitable routes?
Whether it is a nationalised transport system or one driven by free competition, an unprofitable route is an unprofitable route. Under a planned system, there will be poor services (very infrequent and inconsistent) and crossed subsidy. Under free competition, fares will rise for unprofitable routes to ensure that there will be a service. In a tiny dense city like ours, unprofitable routes are few.
The soundest solution to over-demand for air/water/jobs/healthcare/transport/schools/housing is reduce the artificial population growth.
To those who still do not see the problem , this is what Commuters are unhappy with :
1. Private Bus services : their seats and bus are so much cleaner than public buses Despite having less money. Where is the Fairness?
I am sure public bus companies also hire cleaners to clean the buses everyday. But why is not as clean? Should large bus companies have hired more cleaners to do a good job then?
If small bus companies can do it, there is no Excuse for monopolies not to be able to do so. You are already very lucky to have monopoly. This should not invite Complacency.
I vote you out!
2. Fares have kept increasing by bus companies. The commuters are FED UP! always having to accept lesser than expected service.
First world , well travelled and well educated citizens will ROCK you !
We will vote you all out!
competition is good but it is not that easy to implement.
but one outcome will be good. the prices of transport will be lowered.
Alvin Chua
Few private entities can afford to buy and manage SMRT, so it should remain status quo. But bus service should be fully privatised. Let in any number of operators, let them decide which routes to ply, what fares to charge. The government will have one less headache. For those routes not served by bus, let those people solve their own problems. The government can’t be expected to be responsible for all of people’s problems. No harm for public transport to become fully privatised, if possible.
…………
It is not true that no one can operate or run MRTs because it is too big for any one to handle. Break down the MRT routes into smaller parts to invite competitions.
A government should be proactive and willing to be open-minded and listen to suggestions whatever the source for the good of the people.
Whoever offers the best suggestion, listen and try to work with teamwork with opposition and people irrespective of sources of ideas.
In the past too many ideas and feedbacks have been ignored or shot down. It is time to be open, set examples so that all could work as a team.
It is hoped there is a major change. NSP’s suggestions can be studied as a good start as follows:
(1) Government take ownership of transportation service be it called nationalization or some other name. Do not play with technicality.
(2) Set clear SOP with KPIs monitoring to meet minimum requirements.
(3) Select operators offering reasonable fare charges with maximum government infrastructure support on lands and assets which are the duties of government to provide to citizens to make fares affordable to the lower income earners and retirees.
(4) Issuing of reasonable nos. of licences for separate zones for competitive tendering by more bus and rail operators as possible to avoid monopoly without undue restrictions.
Break down MRTs into routes and let there be true competitions.
(5) Each operator has the right to take over routes from those which fail to meet KPIs which is transparently monitored.
With a proactive attitude in providing basic services to people, there should be no need to indulge in all kinds of political responses that turn off people just to save face.
They must offer more double-decker and bendy-buses to accept more fare paying passengers and reduce crush load. They must redesign all the MRT stations to prepare for 8 cabin and/or wider trains, they have to close one station at a time to do the upgrading works. They must show all possible human engineering/planning is exhausted before raising fares.
We used to have TIBS compete against SBS and Channel U up the ante against Channel 8. But in the end, because the govt intervenes and interferes too much, the competitors “collaborate” instead of compete. They simply cut a deal to avoid competiting against each other and then the course of nature just forces them to “collude” and “merge”.
I think Hazel Poa is wrong about the WP model. Nationalizing public transport can work if you have the right people to run it and you have the right pricing structure. For example, foreigners and PR’s should pay a non-subsidized price. You can easily control this with EasyLink card.
Free MRT/BUS rides for all singaporean on eve of the PH for the next 24 hours. :)
Taxi drivers can also take leave and get pay from the Taxi Company.
***
What cannot, then free rides on national day.
In hong kong, the train operator is given the rights to develop land near stations to cross subsidise the train operations. We shld be able to do the same thing here since property value go up because of the train station in the first place. So not unreasonable to capture the enhanced value by taking 1 to 2 pieces to develop into retail mall. Rental then goes towards subsidising train operations. Problem is gahmen not so generous … They always want to sell the land to pte developer and pocket the money.
Someone said Taipei mrt losing money. Not true according to their annual rpt but not as much as smrt, of course.
Sack the top management.
They are the ones who want profit and more profit .
De-list from stock exchange.
Make it National Bus Service.
Cut waste.
Become a Truely Public Service.
If each of the 400 000 citizens pose a logical question at them, something has to give.
i tot i read “The PAP needs to SLAPPED out of its complacency.”, lol.
i somehow disagree that large entities are “usually large and cumbersome, to be able to respond speedily to rapid changes in demand”.
its about the organisation’s culture. even a small company can be resistant to change, or do not respond timely to changing circumstances. but many know of the culture within the PAP lead govt!
a stubborn ol’ man who refuses to change with the changing world, unfortunately set the cultural tone that others have come to emulate. for better or worse, no proposal will work if the fundamentals (organisational culture) remain the same.
NSP can make suggestions but should not have poke holes at fellow Opposition WP. It does Opposition movement no good at all.
Only PAP gains when Opposition poke holes at each other.
I wonder if our president Nathan is able to block the fare increment for his citizen since our dear PM Lee told us to relax.
Jen,
now that you mention. i too wondered why our “people’s President” has rarely spoken up for the people.
i can’t remember an instant which he even did.
Actually, why not let the government still decides the route bundles (i.e. Profitable routes bundled with non-profitable routes) and just let whichever bus company wanted to ply that bundled route to operate? Currently we have only one company taking one bundled routes, which resulted in monopoly.
And have to agree that LTA should revert the decisions to remove bus routes along MRT lines. Instead, LTA should ensure there are bus routes that compete with MRT on the same route, and also make sure these bus routes are not operated solely by the company that operates the MRT.
Hazel,
Good suggestions. The standard model to evaluate the ‘make or buy’ choice in economics is the transaction cost model. You may want to read up on that. Privatization or ‘buy’ is good only if quality can be easily contracted and regulated and if market entry is easy.
On the first point, I’ve seen private buses operating at speed way above the speed limit and take in more passengers than standing room. All these safely flouts are just a terrible accident away to make us realize that a big aspect of public transportation is safety regulation.
On the second point, obviously the private bus operators will choose to serve the highly populated neighborhoods and neglect others.
In all, some will win and some will loss in either mode. A cost-benefit analysis is probably needed to asses the viability of the ‘make’ or ‘buy’ decision.
JS
p.s. Having said, both suggestions are much better than the current mode which is basically just benefiting SBS and SMRT at the expense of the commuters.
well with 100m profit per year..
SMRT can buy 10 more trains and 15 more staff on rotation to run them..
Opposition Parties can no longer issue a one page press release on national issues. They must produce a comprehensive white paper or technical report and recommendation. This will boost their credibility and profile as an alternative government. I look forward to seeing the other opposition parties SPP/SDP/RP Policy Development Group’s review of the transport situation.
“In addition, the Government should fulfill its social responsibilities by providing the necessary infrastructure and subsidies for :
non-profitable but essential routes (which can be funded by bus licensing fees),
full-time students, elderly and disabled, and
low-income earners and families.”
I just cannot understand why citizens serving national service are always conveniently left out in many argument.
Hazel, it is dangerous to take your very myopic view into national debate by listing a couple of categories just like that. The problem is not as simple as your press release stated. I agree with andrew leung, it is a no no to issue a one or two pages kind of press release to show people of your existence. Do take a more in-depth study and come out with a more viable and technical recommendations.
@AlienOnce
Actually, most of SMRT’s profits come from rental, especially from the EW and NS lines. So far they haven’t been particularly keen to use these profits to subsidise their train and bus operations, thus the fare increases.
I feel that the NSP idea is native.
Simply, singapore is a small country thus MRT routes of big planning impact cannot be lay on the hands of private investors and should be in the hand of government as it involves urban development. Singapore currently have good urban development plans unlink Hong Kong where if they need to build a train line in outskirts area, they will have to compensated and move the ppl out of their homes. We do not have that issue.
Privatising the bus services sounds good but mentioned about the non profit areas where no bus operators will want to service and when they control the bus fares, you can never accept fares to go down as they need to maintain their profits.
In the case of Hong kong where they have several small private bus companies work together, you will notice that they will have no central bus stop where if you want to take that particular private bus, you have to go to their other destinated space as they bigger operators do not allow you to share the bus stops.
At really urban area, only limited of private bus operators service there and they price they operate at this area is double the price you travel to City area.
Consider the above, do you think NSP idea can still work in SG today where we get used of having buses no matter private or SBS in a single stop.
(1) The PAP is using infrastructural spending as a fail-safe GDP driver
- Too much emphasis is placed on the train system, to the tune of $60 billion on doubling MRT lines.
(2) Poor understanding of competition
- There can be competition even if there is a single operator in each mode of transportation. Buses, taxis and trains can compete against one another.
- Conversely, even if there are a few operators, there won’t be any competition as long as train lines are not running in parallel, bus routes are segregated, and taxi fares are exorbitant.
(3) Poor understanding of duplication of services
If both train and bus are running from Point A to point B:
- at 50% or less capacity each, there is duplication of services.
- at more than 50% capacity each, there is overlapping of services.
- at more than 75% capacity each, it is called a happy situation.
(4) Poor understanding of spoke-and-hub (SAH) system
- mid 1980s, SAH system was introduced to ensure the trains would survive.
- 1990s, the continuation of the SAH system was justified in the name of efficiency.
- Now, the continuation of the SAH system means inefficiency. Why feed passengers by bus-loads to the train system that is already busted?
Cangeline 28 July 2011
Singapore currently have good urban development plans unlink Hong Kong where if they need to build a train line in outskirts area, they will have to compensated and move the ppl out of their homes. We do not have that issue.
___________________________________________
Firstly, Singapore does not have any “outskirt” areas, the whole country is urban. Secondly, of course people must be compensated when they are forced to move out. Thirdly, if PAP wants to develop the area, people will also be forced to move out, on the terms of the PAP. HK people on the other hand, will fight for their rights and fair terms.
Dun try to be smart & talk cock here
The practical problems:
- Congestion, high fares, inefficiencies, lack of competition and poor services. These are the real problems.
What we should do:
(1) expand less on the train system, more on the bus system
(2) turn the multi-modal operators into single-modal operators for better specialisation/efficiencies
(3) re-introduce parallel services and let the single-modal operators compete against one another
(4) replace some feeder bus services with direct services by granting more licences
As another issue, who else can manage an MRT line? Mostly foreigners.
In Singapore, not many PTO capable of this (actually only 2, SBS & SMRT). Tendering may not be a competitive solution that NSP thinks it can.
MRT lines must be nationalised as these assets require very high capital sunk costs and are pretty much immovable properties.
Buses, routes, feeder services and all forms of public transport must be free market. Even mini bus owners should be allowed to provide such services.
Sounds chaotic? well, does it benefit commuters if routes are regulated and fixed, therefore, you can only get from Pt A to Pt B in a pre-determined manner or would you prefer to have flexibility provided by transport operators to have the nimbleness to cater to supply demand and therefore the required services?
We do not need frills in any public transport, just simple safe, efficient, basic comfort is all to it.
No magic formula really.
I cannot understand why it is so hard for some to agree…probably all control freaks, controlling for the sake of controlling.
WP is trying to change the PAP transport system, they can’t unless they own 51% control of Parliament.
They must come up with a comprehensive report to specify the reduced transport charges and service standards acceptable by everyone. I look forward to Chen Show Mao’s world class standard quality of work.
Is it just me or does anyone feel that some of the posters here just want a fail safe measure to topple PAP and the best way they think is to get every politcal party behind the WP train and chiong.
Might as well create a party called
Anti-PAP party. Party Ideology = do a hatchet job on anything PAP.
Any opposition that does not join the Anti-PAP party will be deemed as traitors and PAP mole/collborators.
NSP might not score perfect marks for their suggestion. But they are trying to stand out to create a political ideology for themselves besides “Go hate on PAP,yay!”. How does that help if one day opposition comes into power?
I don’t expect the opposition to agree with one another if they have a differing opinion and they should not feel obliged to a higher “Anti-PAP” calling. If they have a different opinion they should be allowed to express it.
Black Hei, 28 July 2011
if PAP through the govt supports S’poreans wholeheartedly, the people by large numbers would have reciprocated likewise.
when S’poreans’ livihood is jeopardised by competition from foreigners, what is PAP’s stance?
when S’poreans lost money on toxic investments, what is PAP’s stance?
when cost of living makes life harder for S’poreans who never seem to be able to slack abit (only the “lucky ones” enjoy life), what is PAP’s stance?
have been wondering why PAP does not shower more praises, show more concern, & make S’poreans a happier lot. if they dun like to serve S’poreans they can always migrate, but dun take our monies along if they do so.
What the NSP is proposing may work but it needs to be tweaked. First, only allow a couple of new bus operators otherwise it will create confusion with multiple bus operators. 2nd, the new private transport operators need to demonstrate they can service the routes efficiently, cheaply and with good customer service and also demonstrate hiring of Singaporeans over foreign talents because it must be of benefit to local citizens. Third, an indepdendent committee must be set up to review and monitor fare prices by BOTH the private and public transport companies and only that indepedent committee has the ability to approve raising fare prices for the public and private transport companies and not the government. In addition, and this is iportant, that independent committee MUST consult with the public through a referendum or vote in order for them to approve such fare increases because we need to ensure complete transparency.
blacktryst,
i am not sure how much technical requirements act as a deterent for private operators to join the market. i remember there was a height requirement or flat platform where the old will not need to climb stairs to board the bus. or was there another to allow wheelchairs to roll in, but with even 1 step, no wheelchair can enter.
adding the EZ-Link readers & adding push button buzzer all add to deter smaller private operators if their tender is too short.
i thot the whole part under mrt services is alr in place in spore?
@mice is nice
My arugment has nothing to do with whether PAP is bad or what.
I insist that our political parties campaign with the objective to govern.
It is like a revenge story, after the revenge job is done, the dude ends up empty. The dude needs to have another reason besides revenge, or after the deed is done, he is lost.
If we want to replace PAP, we need to replace them with something. “I hate PAP” is not something you can rule SG with. You can only be a hack if that is the gist of why somebody should vote for you.
@iVOTEahMENG
Hi there sunshine, I have no idea what you are trying to thell me.
For a moment I thought I could read your post. Then I realise the first part was copy and paste.
One thing has always struck me as particularly idiotic/arrogant about the MRT system here, more even than the non-upgradeable platforms without enough escalators. Look at what almost every proper subway/train system has that ours doesn’t.
Express lines.
With just an average person’s foresight, our Government scholars could have foreseen that as the system becomes slower due to crowding delays, a system of limited-stop express trains would take pressure off the main line while speeding commuters’ trips significantly. Doing it on the cheap would require only bypasses around stations and upgraded switching. Any major city system in the last couple hundred years has had this capability. Why not Singapore?
When the stations have to be ripped out and rebuilt to support longer and/or wider trains, this would be a good addition. Take the extra costs out of the salaries and pensions of the PAPpies who signed off on the existing, overworked toy system.
Black Hei,
why are you back peddling on the anti/pro PAP thingy? your post on the 28th of July brought it up.
does PAP govern objectively? lift or estate upgrading perhaps?
this is not about revenge, is about justice, fairplay & democracy. PAP never seem to be able to practise what they preach to the people. there’s the world class transport that they dun take, the world class HDB homes they dun live in. they say its so good but they dun walk the talk? world class not class enough for the “lucky ones”?
quote: “If we want to replace PAP, we need to replace them with something. “I hate PAP” is not something you can rule SG with.”
PAP should be replaced with a something with more fire in the belly, a more can-do spirit & “something” that isn’t too obsessessed with money.
rule SG? i’m disappointed…