Dear SMB128B,
I will dispense the unpleasant words first before I start on the
rest. Stop being a petulant child and keep pressing your points. Do
bother to read up some credible sources on transport planning
(note: LTA White Papers and Master Plans are good sources to
start).
First, I will tackle your claim that it is better to have direct
services into town compared to having a main MRT line with feeder
services feeding people to the MRT line. There will be cases of
people who will take the direct bus service that, in your own
words, "stops just in front of their doorstep and travel straight
to the city via the expressway, rather than taking that
incompetant LRT and then transfer that chiong chiong MRT that
goes circles in the middle-west."
Great. I concede this point of your argument. Sure, from the
passenger point of view, who doesn't like having a direct service
where they can take straight to city? I like that idea too.
However, your argument ceases at this point and what you have
argued is ergo, since direct services are desirable from
passengers' point of view, we shouldn't withdraw these services.
Please do not forget that public transport services do not exist in
vacuo with only passengers' concerns. There are other logistical
constraints that the service providers face.
Let me put in technical language for you and hopefully you can
comprehend what sbst275 is trying to knock into your head. As LTA
has outlined in their 2006 Master Plan paper, they are moving into
the integrated hub model where bus and MRT services will be
integrated into one single physical location and provide seamless
transfer in between both services (btw Bukit Panjang was flagged as
one of the towns to get this integrated hub in the future).
From a logistical point of view, the model you have been
advocating is known as a point-to-point topology. Sure, it is
desirable to have direct services in between towns (or in
topological terms, high connectivity between nodes). However, this
is unsustainable as the number of connections (vertices/bus
services) needed to support the point-to-point topology increases
exponentially as the number of nodes (towns) increases. The
point-to-point topology is good for building redundancy into the
network but is highly inefficient in a significant number of
cases.
On the other hand, what LTA is advocating (and what the
MRT+feeder model is too) is called a hub-and-spoke model where hubs
are created and connections are fed into these hubs from smaller
vertices (feeder services). From then on, it is a matter of linking
up the hubs in the best way possible (MRT). This model is able to
handle an increased number of nodes (towns) without having to
increase the number of connections (bus services) exponentially. If
you think the hub-and-spoke model is just academic bull, do note
that it is used in the aviation industry where there are hubs like
Atlanta Hartfield-Jackson and Chicago O-Hare airports that act as
hubs for flights from smaller cities and then these hubs will be
the bridge to other major cities.
As such, as sbst275 has pointed out, no matter whether you like
it or not, the MRT+feeder model is here to stay at the expense of
direct services. This is because Singapore cannot afford to have an
unsustainable model of infrastructure given our land constraints.
One simple illustration - if the number of services increase
exponentially, so does the number of buses needed to service these
routes. Where are you going to store the extra buses? We only have
so much land for bus parks/depots. Secondly, buses are known to
bunch up. Studies and simulations have shown that bus bunching is
an inherently chaotic system (recall chaos theory). More buses will
only worsen the problem of bus bunching and stress our
over-stressed road network even further.
Your second point being, and I quote you ad verbatim, "What if
DTL has its train in three cars coming in 8 mins? SBS somemore
leh... cannot compare MRT experience wif SMRT since she only
operated MRT in 2003 while SMRT oredi like 20+ yrs liao". If I
recall correctly, you should be staying in the north-east, right? I
used to stay there too. Since SBS started operating the NEL in
2003, it has been rather smooth sailing with not too many major
breakdowns over these few years. Personal empirical experiences
were also very positive. I took the NEL on the first day of its
operation and it was smooth with no delays. I contrast this to the
full opening of the CCL recently. I took it on the first day and
was horrified at how SMRT can screw up so badly. Even up till now
(and today), there are still random delays at every station plus
train faults which was missing from what I recalled from NEL's
early days in operation.
Hence, your argument that the MRT line may not operate well by
virtue of SBS' relative lack of experience in handling MRT
operations doesn't hold much water. In fact, from recent
experiences, I will gladly say that (and is glad that) SBS is
better-suited to operate the automated lines such as DTL. Even my
friends agree that NEL is smooth and its early days were not even
half as bad as CCL's now. Now, don't get me started on SMRT's
experiences on handling the first automated transit system in
Singapore - Bukit Panjang LRT. Maybe you were too young to remember
but it was common to see breakdowns almost every other day in the
first few years until they decided to do a major overhaul of the
signalling system.
Now, given all these, what say you?
What say me?
First, I HATE people who discriminate my age. I may be like a
kid, all right, but that's only I am DESPERATE. You get it? Just
becoz SBS and Comfortdelgro are TOO systematic, so they cannot
react to sudden changes, and that's what SMRT is gd at. They kept
on going their own ways and did not reply properly when I concerned
abt 163's issue. Again, CCL may NOT be SMRT's problem. Why not
blame the LTA which just sits there and do nothing but hand SMRT
more and MORE penalty fines? Remember, CCL can EVEN be affected by
the collaspe of the Nicoll Highway in 2004. Though chances may
kill, but anything CAN be possible.
Now, Bukit Panjang LRT. Remember: I OREDI MENTIONED THAT IT'S SO
LOUSY, WHO WILL TAKE IT TO TRANSFER MRT???!!! That's LRT, NOT MRT,
two seperate matters. SBS can operate LRT properly, alll
right, but SBS made its MRT so pathetic I hate taking it
now. I'd rather take SMRT's EWL, which hardly had delays too. NSL
oso (although I know recently there's a delay). So I don't EVEN
NEED YOU TO GET STARTED ON THAT PATHETIC TRASH.
