Singapore should give the BRT system a try. It is many ways
superior to our current MRT train system.
1. If one MRT train on the line stalls, essentially the whole
line stalls. In 2011, only 5 or so train stall on the NS line,
capacity ~10,000, yet it affect over 50,000 commuters. If
there are any track incursions , like people falling on track, then
there will also be a major disruption. Disruptions are common
and very major.
However, in BRT, if one bus fails, the whole line can continue
functioning. Buses behind can simply overtake the failed
bus.Only 50 or so ppl will be affected.
2. Single lane rail capacity is limited .If roads have 2
lanes, BRT capacity can double. If they have 3, then triple.
3. Intervals have to be spaced out in an MRT system. Because a
train takes 1 min to stop at a station, intervals can never be
shortened below 1min. However, bus stops/stations are at the
side of the road, and do not affect the flow. Interval does not
matter.
4. An MRT is linear, it waste 20 or more minutes in a 45 min
journey because it has to stop at every station. At AM peak
hours,because the majority of the stops are to pick up passengers,
it wastes passengers travelling time.
However, BRT system can have express services which travel
directly from town center stations, say Tampines, directly into the
city, and vice versa during PM peak. Travelling time can be saved
by more than half.
5. The braking of buses is better than that of train. Trains
take many hundreds of metres to stop, buses only take a few 10s of
metres. Trains need to be far far apart for safety, whereas you can
put buses like traffic distance away from each other.
In fact, I calculate that a 2 lane BRT line can support 3x as
many passengers as a MRT line:
MRT: Interval: 1:40min. 1 train, 1920 passenger, =
70,000 passenger/hour.
BRT: Interval: As low as 3s (av time between cars in heavy
traffic) double decker : 100 passenger. = 120,000
passenger/hour per lane. 2 lane = 240,000 passenger/hour.
6. We can build our BRT on the ground, in fact, we can use roads
we already have. To build new MRT lines they have to be underground
or above ground.
7. We dont need expensive infrastructure for BRT. Just road, bus
stop and bus depot (garage) can liao. No need expensive signalling,
switchback, 100,000 sq m depots... And since its simpler theres
less things to fail. I cannot even think about how a BRT
infrastructure could fail lol.
The only cons about BRT is that it maybe pollutes more and
requires more bus drivers. (Or maybe it cost more for the
buses).
Maybe you guys can shed light on how much bus cost vs
MRT.
But I think it shouldnt cost too much. we now have 110 MRT
trains, total capacity 192,000. To seat 192,000, we need
about 3800 single deck bus, maybe if double deck then 2000.
If 1 billion dollars can buy and supply 800 bus, then 5
billion dollars can supply 4000 buses, about the cost of the
Downtown line.
Instead of Thomson Line, Govt can build a BRT highway instead.
cheaper and more efficient.
